User talk:Adamgerber80

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

2016 Indian Line of Control strike

Did you see the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Indian Line of Control strike? I really find the NadirAli, Uncle Sargam and Auntie Agni accounts suspicious, not because they are voting for the merging of the content, but because of a pattern. NadirAli and Uncle Sargam voted within an hour of eachother and basically the same (against the article), while people were only voting keep for three days constantly. Not to mention Uncle Sargam's general edits seem to be sporadic. Now, there is this basically newly-created and also sporadic Auntie Agni account. Auntie Agni also relisted the discussion on the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shouldn't it be then relisted on India-related deletion discussions as well? What do you think? I have asked an admin for his opinion about listing the discussion on India-related deletion discussions as well. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems two of them really did turn out to be sockpuppets. They've been blocked. EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi EkoGraf Sorry for the delayed response. I have been busy with travel and work. Yes, I did indeed see them and had a run in with both the socks across multiple pages. The general area of India Pakistan conflict pages is strewn with either editors who push a nationalistic POV or socks of editors who have been blocked in the past (on both sides). Every now and then we see a newly created account (potentially a sock) enter the area and disrupt the pages. There was also a pretty intense WP:ARE a week or so ago which lead to about 10 editors being indefinitely topic banned from India-Pakistan topics broadly. You can have a look at this here. If you do go through the list you will see quite a few familiar names (I guess form your earlier interaction with them on other India-Pakistan pages). This has given a much needed cool down time for this area of Wikipedia and will now allow other uninvolved editors to constructively contribute to the area in general (or so is the hope). Hope this gives you a somewhat better understanding of the current situation. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I actually saw the WP:ARE. Heated and sometime un-constructive debates filled with POV-pushing and edit wars aren't new to me, I have seen my fair share of it over the last seven years I've been editing pages related to the Syrian civil war. However, rarely have I seen this much POV-pushing where editors blatantly ignore the sourced facts and actually try to go around the rules by creating this much sockpuppets. Yes I think a cooldown period for all of them is needed, although I think for some it won't make much of a difference. Time will tell. In any case, I'm glad the issue of this article has been resolved. EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Or not...just saw that you reopened the deletion talk. EkoGraf (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggested to the editor that tried to close the discussion (and who you reverted) that it would be probably best that he cast his keep opinion (that he expressed) and leave it to an un-involved administrator to close the discussion as you said. He agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I think this area is very strongly contested by both sides and it would be ideal that an experienced admin was to look at this from a neutral point of view and make a decision. I am fine with the fact that if the community feels that this should not exist as it's own article than we can merge it back. My recommendation to you on this would be to be not worry about the article since the deletion discussion won't and should not be closed this soon. It should be given a few more weeks to see if there are other editors who do indeed wish to chime in. IMO, you need a good job with the article and you are welcome to help out with other articles in the area which need some sprucing up.

Also, thanks for fixing my mistake on the numbers in the 2016 confrontation article. I mixed the two numbers in my head since it was the end of a long day for me. I am currently busy with travel and work and so my replies will be sporadic. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems an admin closed the discussion as keep. I think that's fine, except two editors (including the nominator) and a sockpuppet virtually everyone was in agreement that it should be kept. Also, no problem. I'll help out anyway I can. Like I said, my main area of editing is Syria, but I saw that the skirmishes article and the Siachen conflict one were in serious need of changes (per sources) and clean-up, so I decided to chip in. Glad everything is settled at least for now. EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sant Jarnail Singh Page edits

After re-reading my edits I can appreciate why you felt that a personal opinion was inserted and have since edited the page primarily with referenced facts. Please understand that there is no malice intended behind this post. If you find further issues with the edits please let me know how I can modify the posts in a manner that would align with Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I would strongly recommend you to discuss your contributions on the article talk page. IMO, a huge section of your edits is either not merited on the page, WP:OR and violating WP:NPOV. Please keep these Wikipedia guidelines in mind when you dicuss your edits. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I can post on the article talk page, but on the article talk page you requested that I post on your talk page: "If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page." So I have been trying to follow your instructions, but as a new user having my edits wiped out without any explanations is very intimidating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning

I have attempted to correct the false statement alleging that Sant Bhindranwale started the Khalistan movement 3 times due to incorrect citations. You have reverted the page each time and did not address this error in any subsequent edit (the edit had been completed independently at least once with an appropriate description in the Edit Summary field). Please note that because the citations do not support the statement made on the page that this is a violation of Wikipedia's "WP:PROVEIT" policy which states:

• All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article

Please refrain from reverting this edit in future and let us continue to work together in good faith.

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

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

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

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

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Khalistan Separatist Movement

Hey Adamgerber80! I noticed you reverted the Khalistan movement article after I updated the material to reflect information in the citations. You should always default to an rephrasing instead of blanket removal. I want to come to an agreement, but it's your responsibility to make your concerns known. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Elephanthunter I have replied to your discussion on the talk page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Elephanthunter. Adamgerber80, you also resorted to a blanket removal of my edits to the Sant Jarnail Singh page, without providing specifics about the passages that concerned you. My understanding is that, as editors, we should be respecting the following guidelines:

• Do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone
• When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral.

As a new user, I find it extremely intimidating that you would resort to a blanket removal of all of my edits, which I made in segments that included explanations for the edits in the Edit Summary field. I also cited my contributions with reputable sources representing popular perspectives, not my personal perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Southasianresearcher there are quite a bit of issues with your edits. I will open a discussion on the talk page and point them out. Please do not constantly add a huge amount of content on the page which has a lot of problems. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi User:Adamgerber80, I have received feedback from User:SpacemanSpiff and am going to re-post my edits with his recommendations in mind. It has been more than 24 hours and I haven't seen anything from you on the talk page. I'm going to repost my edits re Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale but would ask that you provide more specific concerns with my edits than simply stating "lot of problems". As a new user I would appreciate a more guidance if you continue to police this page. In response to your comment 'constantly add a huge amount of content', I will also see if I can be a little more incremental so that you can keep up with the pace of the edits.

Stop disrupting

You have been disrupting here by subjectively reverting without a valid justification making an attempt to collaborate. Previously, I have created various sections of this article, including Maritime borders of India, Border bazaars and haats, Designated crossings with ICP & LCS, etc. These sections have stood the test of time in this article by remaining here for long enough and these sections similar to the "border ceremonies section" I had added recently and you keep reverting disruptively. BRD, etc are for vandalism and true wiki spirit is you must exercise goodfaith, mutual respect and collaborate (instead of disrupt by revert ). 90% of $this article is basically my work. What is your contribution, except disrupting by repeated reverts? Stop wasting time of the productive and useful editors in such subjective manner while you have made zero or none contribution. Do not take IP for granted, treat all editors with same respect and goodfaith. I am goign to put back all the "vandalism through revert". 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@202.156.182.84: Please see WP:OWN. Moreover, I have opened a discussion on the article talk page. Please provide your rationale there. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand no one owns it. But you can not disrupt. Sepcially when you have made little contribution. I note that multiple other editors have left warnings on your talkpage above. Stop disrupting things, specially where you have made little or no contribution. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have left a discussion on the article talk page for you to reply to. As for the above discussions, you can see the respective talk pages of those articles and I have raised my concerns. If you feel that my concerns on those pages are incorrect, then please feel free to chime in. This very rationale of "Sepcially when you have made little contribution" is what WP:OWN is about. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

issue here is not about who owns it, No one owns it. it is about the who is a contributing editor 9me) versus who is a disruptive editor without contributing (you). I have replied to you on my talkpage too. For this topic you must reply here and not there on my talkpage because I have created the thread here. I noticed multiple other antagonised editors have warned you recently on your talkpage above. Please do not make it a habit. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(tps) IP, I am not sure which edits are being discussed, but you cannot call reverts of new edits "disruption". Please see WP:BRD. You need to discuss the issues on the article talk page and arrive it WP:CONSENSUS. If CONSENSUS does not seem possible, you can invite other editors by WP:3O or by other means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, depends on the context. WP:BRD etc are for protecting wikipedia from vandalism, etc. It should not be used as a first option. Core principal of wikipedia is to "collaborate", which should be embodied by editors, such as through incremental edits, e.g. reorganise/rephrase/enhance and not by using reverts as default option. Re: WP:3O, yes, it is a good option is no resolution is reached by the two individuals involved. What does the acronym (tps) stand for, tips? 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do read the WP:BRD page thoroughly. Your understanding is wrong. The term "vandalism" is nowhere mentioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Gist of all wikipedia guidelines is this - "collaborate". Wiki lawyering that goes against "collaboration" is prohibited. It becomes an issue when reverts are used repeatedly (instead of collaboration) and specially if it is a concern raised by the multiple unrealted editors across several articles (pattern). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@202.156.182.8: I have opened a talk page discussion, reply there. Also, currently your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines seems to be incorrect. Please familiarize yourself with them. My reply on your talk page was about a whole different issue aka you adding unnecessary content in the See Also section. It seems you have an issue with WP:IDHT because you keep repeating it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

PAKISTAN NAVY

I have been a wikipedian for over 14 years. I know how wiki works all mentioned detials are properly sourced and cited.

I do not want to take your account to arbitration committee so don't force me. I don't get it why are you so obsessed with Pakistan and its armed forces? Regardles of how many edits you do. ALL OF WHICH I HAVE POSTED IS AS PER ll articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. Faraz (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)