User talk:Adamgerber80

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Type 56

Why you disturb me every time i know about Type 56 more then you AtaurRehman2002 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mrs kindly do your work on your indian pages Type 56 is not designed in 1947 it's design date is 1950-55 AtaurRehman2002 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AtaurRehman2002 Welcome to Wikipedia. I do not argue that fact that you might know more than me about Type 56 weapons. But the way Wikipedia works is that you have to provide reliable references when you add new content. Please read WP:RS for more details. You have added uncited information on all your edits so far and thus have received multiple warnings from many editors. Please be careful. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice very soon i will provide you all the reliable sources about type 56 Thanks.

Discuss changes on article talk page

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce Can you please explain to me what warrants this level 3 warning? The user is adding new information and replacing existing cited information. I reverted asking them to discuss or add in addition to the current information not replace it. I have not violated 3RR on the contrary I tried to maintain STATUS:QUO. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user replaced four inline citations, one of which was to a source that failed WP:HISTRS and had been tagged as an {{unreliable source?}}. Their new sources are plausible reliable sources - books published by academic presses. Their explanation for replacing the sources was "Improving references". Their explanation could have been more fulsome, but the change was not unexplained. Whether their changes improved the article is open to debate, but that debate isn't happening in 255-character edit summaries.

The other editor keeps making more or less the same changes despite your reverts, so I gave them a {{uw-ew}} and told them to take it to talk. They appear inexperienced on-wiki and may not be familiar with the bold-revert-discuss cycle. I'll self-trout for using the same warning with you rather than taking the time to craft a more collegial custom message. Please accept my apologies. I have no plan to block you. I wanted to get the attention of both parties, head off a bold-revert-bold-revert-bold-revert-ad infinitum cycle, and get a discussion started. You're the more experienced editor, you know it's edit warring whether you violate 3RR or not, so I ask you to get things started on Talk:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. Explain why you're concerned about the changes. If the other party doesn't engage with there in a reasonable amount of time, by all means return to status quo ante. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seems that this user have problems with warring edits.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your contribution , But

Hello dear, I saw that you are deleting and adding in the Page Italian nuclear weapons program I thank you for your attention on Italian Page, but please can you explain me why you are deleting " without a good motivation", and why i should talk on talk Page, you are the only one that have problems with this article..LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LuigiPortaro29 Replied to you on the article talk page. My talk page is not the place to discuss issues with that article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are vandalizing article.Italy can deliber b61 in case of war as US claim.In Ghedi only italian jets in fact.

Discuss this on the article talk page. I am not vandalizing the article. Only mentioning what is in the sources. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are widely anti italian.b61 in. Ghedi can be delibered only by AMI as all referenced rerport.You are an enbious third world guy for propaganda.

For the last time, discuss this on the article talk page. Lastly, You have already been reported for block evasion. Do not make this any harder on yourself. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

benniejets Stop it!! please you are currently blocked!, Adam please , tell me Why you have delete the examples of vega rocket? there similar examples of this like in the Japanese Page, Why you need to delete things that you dont like?.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki mehran

You have revised the suzuki merhan information Wikipedia is not your property you are not allowing anyone to add any info you can check on internet about suzuki mehran AtaurRehman2002 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AtaurRehman2002 See reply below. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki khyber

Dear you arw not allowing anyone to add anything even with reliable sources as you edited suzuki khyber page it's production date is 1990-2000 also you have edited suzuki merhan and Type 56 page i think you have a personal Hostility with me? Please do not edit any information without reliable sources you want to rule Wikipedia i think. AtaurRehman2002 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AtaurRehman2002 I have explained to you in an earlier comment that we only add content to Wikipedia based on reliable sources. The last time we talked, you did state you would provide references which clearly specify the range of Type 56 gun. But you went ahead and edited the page again without doing so. Have you provided reliable sources for the pages of Suzuki Kyhber and Suzuki Merhan? If you think I have not edited correctly, feel free to discuss on the corresponding Article Talk pages where we can discuss in more detail and other interested editors can also comment. I am going to revert your recent edits since I do not find a reference for them. Please be careful of these Wikipedia rules and follow them. Lastly, I do not have a personal grudge against you, on the contrary I would like you to encourage you to edit Wikipedia but only add content which can be verified by other editors. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the pak suzuki official website then argue Ataurrehman942 (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your empty threats

Your warnings on my talk page will not get you anywhere go read WP Terrorist than try and challenge my edit 2 years editing and still ignorant about Wikipedia policies. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ShaniAli1lo I have added more references. Please discuss this on the Article talk page in a civil manner and do not engage in personal attacks or edit war. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I will tell you go read policy regarding the word terrorist even Osama Bin Laden is not called one on Wiki introduction stop bending rules to suit your agenda. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ShaniAli1lo The policy clearly states that if they are neutral sources then the label can be added. I have added a source from the UN which is assumed to be neutral here. How is this suiting my agenda? Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the previously added category. Please consider reconciliation

Removed the previously added category. Please consider reconciliation Jsncol (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jsncol I replied to you on the article talk page. Please be clear with what you want to reconcile with. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refertence is made to Suman Kumar Kasturi page. Removed the category. Please reconcile your nomination Jsncol (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal webpages cannot be used as references on Wikipedia. You have to prove that the person is notable. Currently I see no reference of that fact. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By reconciliation, I mean checking whether approriate changes have been made as you desired and removal of nomination. I am new to wiki so sorry for the previous attempt to delete the tage myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsncol (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jsncol Welcome to Wikipedia. I have explained you before that every page on Wikipedia needs to meet certain guidelines in this case Wikipedia:Notability. The person in this case is not notable as thus does not warrant a page. It has nothing to do with you removing content and us reaching an understanding. You should provide reliable independent sources (not personal website) to show enough reason to keep that page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]