User talk:Trojanishere

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on User talk:Kautilya3 were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Trojanishere, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to State Emblem of India have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
Your addition to INS Arighat has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Specifically, this edit. &mdash;  Vaibhavafro  &#128172; 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
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, which you did not do on North East Delhi riots. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SerTanmay (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan
Note that North East Delhi riots is one of the many articles covered by these sanctions. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Page restriction on 2020 Delhi riots
Hi, your recent edit at Special:Diff/946602018 reinstated a reverted edit you made 25 minutes earlier (Special:Diff/946600178). There is a page restriction on the 2020 Delhi riots (reproduced here) which specifies that "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." Please revert Special:Diff/946602018 to meet the page restriction. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   06:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Standard warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2020 Delhi riots; 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. —  Newslinger  talk   06:43, 21 March 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.

Canvassing on Articles for deletion/2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi
Hi Trojanishere, in Special:Diff/948752338, you pinged two other editors and asked them to "join the discussion" at Articles for deletion/2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi in your comment, which expressed "DO NOT DELETE" in bold and all caps. Calling other editors to influence the discussion, as you did here, is an unacceptable violation of the canvassing guideline. In general, you should not notify other editors of a deletion discussion, as all interested editors will be made aware of the discussion through the deletion banner on the article and the article alerts on the tagged WikiProjects.

This is your final warning regarding your edits in the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area, which is under discretionary sanctions. Please ensure that your edits comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the future. —  Newslinger  talk   09:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Standard warning
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   09:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Chawinda Reversion
Hi Trojanishere, Why did you undo my edit without reason? Did you review the sources? Do you know of the concesus established 5 years ago?

--Nawabmalhi (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
The citation link you mentioned as "not working" is indeed fine. I have reverted your revert because every argument you have used is your revert is false. Kashmir press cite "The Telegraph" a Reliable Source (The Telegraph in turn cite a Indian official), and The Thelegraph article require suscription. For that reason i have added a Scroll.in web cite. Thats the reason I added that number. 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. Mr.User200 (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2020 China–India skirmishes 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''You’ve made at least 11 non-consecutive unambiguous reverts on the article. 3RR is a bright line. Don’t cross it again.'' — MarkH21talk 10:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All those edits have edit summaries. Go through them. As the page isn't protected many unnecessary edits are being made. That's why reverts are there. Nothing is out of whim. Further about Jinping, the world knows him as the president of china, not as the supreme leader of CCP. And as Wikipedia is a tool for people from across the globe to read, he should be mentioned as the president as that is the widely used term. Trojanishere (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * I don’t think you understood the point of my warning (which doesn’t have to do with the specific edit about Xi Jinping). Read WP:3RR. If you make more then three reverts on a single page (excluding the few listed and narrow exceptions), you will be blocked. It doesn’t matter if they had edit summaries or otherwise justified, nor if the page is unprotected.You cannot revert more than three times. Don’t do it again. — MarkH21talk 10:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I know that and understood your point . But many disruptions are coming without any proper sources. Anyway, regarding your recent edit on 2020 China-India skirmishes, I think you should roll back your edit on Xi. Please do. As I have explained the world knows him as the president of china, not as the supreme leader of CCP. And as Wikipedia is a tool for people from across the globe to read, he should be mentioned as the president as that is the popular and widely used term. Trojanishere (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * Unreferenced additions aren’t 3RR exceptions.That would just be sloppy, since our articles clearly describe that paramount leader (effective leader) and General Secretary (highest ranking official) are the important positions in China as countless RSes do.It’s somewhat dubious that most of the world knows him as President of China over the aforementioned positions, even outside of RSes (although usage has increased since he removed the term limit). For RSes on the subject, they overwhelmingly describe the role of paramount leader and general secretary as the leader of the country and describe Xi Jinping in those roles. We don’t need to apply terms that are used misleadingly when the accurate terms are available. You can take it to Talk:Xi Jinping if you feel that he should be described as President of a China across WP instead of the roles for which he is significant.For what it’s worth, I would generally use General Secretary instead of paramount leader since the former is more common than the latter in RSes and is less confusing to the average person since it’s also formally the highest ranking official. Paramount leader is more accurate in the sense that when the roles are not held by the same person, e.g. Deng Xiaoping, the paramount leader is the only one who matters. — MarkH21talk 10:50, 18 June 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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. — MarkH21talk 09:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not edit warring. I am just trying to enforce what has been agreed on the Talk page. That casualties will be mentioned. That's all. Should I leave the page just like that? This is a current issue, not some static page, so edits will be made rapidly and many among them aren't following the agreed upon conventions. I request you to consider rolling back the report as I am not trying to alter the facts. I am just making the info box to the point and decluterred. -- Trojanishere (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * Again, WP:3RR says you cannot make three reverts, regardless of whether it upholds consensus or is otherwise justified, except in extremely strict exceptions. You don’t seem to understand the very simple rule that you cannot revert edits more than three times. So yes, you should have left the page just like that. — MarkH21talk 09:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

3RR rule
Hello !! Cool down, you are reverting edits multiple times, self revert your recent edit immediately, because you just did extensive reverts. More than 5 times, more than enough for anyone to report you. Self revert your edit that you just did. Aljazeera statement is not correct. Zhou said, "presently we don't have any one in our coustody". And the infobox numbers are all per reliable source, neither of Govts deny or accept. So we should keep as per reliable source. Don't revert these materials. Drat8sub (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This suggestion if you consider will be good for you. Cool down, better to take a step back sometimes to think rationally. And don't start again tomorrow the same edit war as it will be counted along with that. See I'm not complaining but to my surprise I've found out that you are already reported, as you abused the editing privelege in that level and still you pursued this excessive revert today, which you should not have done. Because to my knowledge it may end up in topic ban or temporary. Better you go there any make your comment that you should not have done that, that may save you from a topic ban or temporary ban. It's upto you, if consider this suggestion. And add the exact words the spokesperson said, don't interpret your own version in the lead what you did in your last edit on the lead. Drat8sub (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Careful Dude
You just came back from a ban, and even if it is not policy or rule, your actions are likely to be scrutinized more than that of others, at least for a while, to see if their was any positive personality change in you. Please be careful regarding reverts, as you did here and here. Don't take this in the wrong way as it's not even a warning. It's just an advise from my side. Remember, its better to reply to editors on the talk page instead of in your edit summaries. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan  ( talk ) 19:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Edit: I saw you addressed the editor on the talk page. Thx for that. Field Marshal Aryan ( talk ) 21:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of my edit
Hi, Could you explain how was my edit vandalism and how was the file not declassified document? The book has a declassification stamp and is a primary source.
 * Your sources are from military claims. Not any civil authority or neutral assessment or by any third party. While the citations used earlier to back Indian victory are from civil authors including 3rd party sources. So they are more valuable and carry more weight. Further, the Indian victory is backed by multiple citations, while what you are editing relies only on one source that too of the government. In India, the government does not control what is published. The views and research are of the authors but in China, nothing is published without the approval of the CCP. So, they both cannot have the same face value. Trojanishere (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

What you just said makes no sense to me. An internal document carries no political view nor was it intended for the general public. The author of your “civil author” clearly isn’t objective in anyway as nearly no evidences were given in the book. Given that the entire article is cited by Indian sources the article is almost unreadably one sided. I hope you understand Wikipedia is not Indian and abide NPOV. You also deleted my Cho La edit which is a known fact that China has Cho La with in its line of actual control.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko

Also according to WP:RS, the author is a known professor in an Indian university. He should not be seen as a “third party” nor “carry more weight”. We don’t have the right to say which nationality of authors has more weight in their writing and I hope you understand, everything you rebutted me with were your opinions and hardly any facts at all. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko


 * The claims of Indian victory are also backed by citations from David Van Praagh. And from P. Hoontrakul, C. Balding, R. Marwah. None of them is Indian. These are third-party sources and they corroborate Indian victory. Trojanishere (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

It’s a known fact that no real treaty was set in stone and both countries officially claimed victory. An opinion is not a fact and objectively no matter how many opinion pieces are written NO ACTUAL VICTORIES WERE ACHIEVED. I hope you understand. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko
 * First of all, using Capital letters where not necessary amounts to shouting. Please do not do that."It’s a known fact that no real treaty was set in stone and both countries officially claimed victory" Now this is your opinion. You have got no solid third party neutral source to assert your claim. And what you are claiming as opinions are actually well-researched facts established well-known scholars. Please do not indulge in such statements and namecalling. Trojanishere (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * When a defending side successfully quells the attack, it is a victory for the defenders. Trojanishere (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

“When a defending side successfully quells the attack, it is a victory for the defenders” China captured Cho La. I use capital letters not as in shouting but highlighting the center of my argument. I think you are overreacting and I’m sorry I don’t see how without real treaty or actual negotiations an Indian victory could be a fact. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)YuukiHirohiko


 * you are bringing in your bias here.Not all victories end with treaties. See this Kargil war. No treaty was signed still the victor is clear. There are many more examples where treaties or agreements are not the basis for determining the victor.

Further this wasn't a war. This was a skirmish or at most a battle. Battles don't end with treaties but still have victors. For example - Battle of Bulge ended without any treaty but with Allied victory and Battle of Stalingrad, the biggest battle in modern history didn't end with a treaty but still it is known for a fact that the Russians won it. Trojanishere (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

I’m sorry how is it anything close to the battle of Bulge or Stalingrad? Von Paulus clearly met with the Soviet High Command and made his surrender as sixth army’s representative. If you wish to walk representatives Indian negotiators went into Chinese positions with a white flag to retrieve 14 bodies. Every battle needs to be analyzed to a case to case basis and I don’t see you trying anything apart from an Indian perspective which in turn had you banned before. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. You are saying this - "If you wish to walk representatives Indian negotiators went into Chinese positions with a white flag to retrieve 14 bodies." This is not equivalent to surrender. Moreover, the bodies of Chinese soldiers were also handed over by the Indian party. Surrender is when you give take away your ranks, belts, service revolvers in front of the enemy and sign an instrument of surrender. Sides take their bodies from the opposing forces all the time like this.

2.Further, you had said victor cannot be declared without a treaty. I had given you some examples. And can give you many more Battle of Britain, Siachen conflict, North African campaign, Battle of Aachen, Battle for The Hague and numerous others ended without a treaty. This isn't an Indian perspective. The claims of Indian victory are backed by citations from David Van Praagh. And from P. Hoontrakul, C. Balding, R. Marwah. None of them is Indian. '''These are third-party sources and they corroborate Indian victory. So, no Indian perspective in what I am claiming. If anything exists, it is the Chinese perspective in your arguments which are not backed by any good and neutral citations. There is no use discussing anything like this. Bring me credible third party, neutral sources claiming Chinese victory and I will include it in the article, if not then I cannot see any changes being tenable.''' Trojanishere (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Still doesn’t explain Chinese territorial gain in Cho La. By the way the Indian losses figure used Indian Government claims, released by the parliament. I don’t see anything wrong with Chinese released figures in the same regard, it’s hypocritical to say the least. Clearly the article doesn’t abide to your “third party” rule by anyway by using Indian general’s quotes, Indian government released info and not to mention Cho La is clearly in the Chinese LAC whilst the article claims otherwise. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

July 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. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:35, 2 July 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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

 * I spent time in reading the said policies and I agree that I violated WP:SOCK by asking a relative (living in same house) to make the edits. I realise that I didn't had to do it. Since I violated WP:SOCK for evading WP:3RR, I am ready to stick to single account and abide by WP:1RR for all pages. Thanks. Trojanishere (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * Thank you for the ping. Please review Guide to appealing blocks for how to format an appeal so that it may be reviewed. -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence does not show any immediately obvious recent block evasion here. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any positive contributions on other wikis that you would like to share with us? SQL Query me! 23:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited any Wikimedia project since I was recommended above to accept the standard offer. Trojanishere (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Re-pinging in case of a failed ping. Trojanishere (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You may wish to edit another project and build up several hundred constructive edits across several months, then try your unblock request again. --Yamla (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)