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!

indian ARMY FOUGHT "WITH" OR "FOR"

HI,

i had made a minor edit in grammar which suggested that the British Indian Army, in 1939(prior to independence) fought the Allies.

the Word "with " would seemingly indicage that they fought AGAINST the allies, i had therefore modified it to "for" , SO AS TO CONVEY the correct meaning.

Alternatively , you can edit it to mean "along with" , but the word "with" conveys an antagonism which was not present, nor intended in the passage IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Chimesmonster I agree with your assessment that just using "with" can indicate antagonism but using "for" also would have changed the meaning IMO. The word "along with" is a better option. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Re. Revered Changes Women in Indian Armed Forces and Para (Special Forces)

I noticed you reverted my changes ([1] and [2]) to the above-mentioned articles with the comment "reference needed". I have added the necessary references to the article on The Test Case. I intend to re-add the text to both the above article minus the Fauji TV series related text - I am not involved maintaining that article. Thought I should check if you had any objections before I did? -MayureshK 15:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Mskadu Those references look fine. I would suggest to always add references with the content you add to new pages. Ideally the one to two which cover the entire content you are adding. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: I usually do. unfortunately you reverted the changes before I had the chance. I would have hoped you would have marked it with the likes of template:cn to give me a chance to fix your concern. Perhaps something to consider in the future? Anyway, thanks for your response. I will re-add the text briefly. -MayureshK 07:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You have reverted my text which was as per discussed. Please add the relevant sources as well. My general guideline of such pages (Indian military related) is that I revert instead of adding the cn tags since they see a high degree of of unsourced additions or vandalism. Whenever you add content, please try to add the reference with it. This way it won't get reverted. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

JF-17 Thunder

Hi.

There are some links below for sources:

https://www.hsz.hu/phirek/8/katonai-tipusok/elkeszult-a-100.-jf-17-thunder-pakisztanban

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3031586.html

The fact shall remain even if you revert my edits, like it or not, Pakistan has over 100 JF-17s and not to mentioned additional JF-17Bs as well (dual seater) on test runs. Faraz (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Faraz Please be careful with your words. You first edited the page with no sources, then you added a WP:SPS and continue with this disruptive behavior. Of the 2 references you have provided the first one is WP:RS and can be used to update those numbers. I wonder when you had this source why did not update the page with it rather than adding no citation. The second one is again a WP:SPS. lastly, in the future, when you edit numbers or figures please provide a WP:RS if you don't want your edits to be reverted. Also, Quwa is not comparable to Janes group by any means of imagination. It does not become reliable just because you say so. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits removed

You removed my edit from a page I created. Please don’t.-Frji Tyyrghfdewgh (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Frji Tyyrghfdewgh I reverted two edits, one was unsourced and other was violating NPOV. Wikipedia is a community resource and we edit it together under the guidelines laid out. If some other editor feels that your edits are violating these guidelines or does not think they are appropriate than they can undo/revert your edits. You can discuss your edits with them on the talk pages of respective pages to put forth your views and why they should be included per Wikipedia guidelines. Making a random statement not to undo your edits (without providing due reason) which are in my view in violation of Wikipedia guidelines is not correct. Please edit responsibly. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Mirpur

I'm not sure you did what you thought you did there [3]. I know it can be annoying when several editors have edited in succession, but in such situations it's usually a good idea to check the diffs before reverting (if you enable the navigation popups previewing the diffs is much quicker). – Uanfala (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala Sorry about that. I was reverting edits by a LTA and undid your edit as well. I tried to reinstate your edit but I guess did not link UK. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

39.57

This IP is a sock of Mfarazbaig. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. Don't expect him to discuss.[4] D4iNa4 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

D4iNa4 I suspected so. It is easier to protect the page and avoid further disruption in the short term then to wait for the SPI to bear fruition. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Investigations involving IPs are always too slow. If we go by the fundamental that we should not revert until the sock is blocked then I can imagine how bad these articles will become. Since no one can really claim that these IPs are not Mfarazbaig who is on verge of getting sitebanned, requesting page protection and referring to this SPI will definitely work. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)