User talk:Gotitbro

Help please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:50A6:B843:D402:CE33:C681:83DA (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gotitbro. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Ekabhishek^talk 03:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gotitbro. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DVD Cover of Malgudi Days.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In future, when you are uploading a new version of the same file, like this one File:Malgudi Days, TV series, DVD cover.jpg, you do it there it self. Instead of creating a new file. Makes things simpler. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 03:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For updating this [1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, 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. Please try to add a useful edit summary for your edits, especially one where you are adding a merge template. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 18:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Indian Ten Rupees Coin - 2005 Obverse.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DOTPH INC., BNRS Search.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you may have noticed I rolled back you edits at Otello Corporation. I have done so because two other editors have independently redirected the article to Opera Software. I understand you object to this redirect, and so I suggest you start a discussion at Talk:Opera Software as consensus seems to be against you.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have explained myself here User_talk:Onel5969#Otello_Corporation. The article was previously redirected as another page was incorrectly move there and the consensus was that both companies are distinct (User talk:Fayenatic london#CFD results: Opera Software). I am only fixing WP:COAT and the article already fits WP:CORP. The editors aren't in conflict with me but with the previous page move which I had now corrected. I extensively sourced and cited info in the article and request you to revert the rollback. This rollback also breaks meaningful links in Opera Software. Gotitbro (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my edit was inline with the previous consensus and I even added the discussions in my edit summaries. Not sure why you didn't go through them. Gotitbro (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just used it randomly as a joke. A combination of numbers and letters that are difficult to read.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Telephone numbers in Mauritius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pears (soap), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check Template:Infobox criminal and fill up the prison status , location etc details as described in the template. thank you. --DBigXray 21:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @DBigXray: I have added some fields that were missing but since the article does not contain much info most fields cannot be filled unfortunately. Gotitbro (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that is good for now, It is not expected to fill all the fields. there are far too many of them. we should only try to fill to importnatn onces and valid ones. it is helpful now. --DBigXray 09:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gotitbro. When you moved Asianet to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Asianet" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @R'n'B: Thanks for letting me know. All of these pages with the Asianet link need to be changed to Asianet (TV channel). Is there a tool that can help me with this? As these are a lot of articles I don't think I'll be able to fix them manually. It would be great if you can change the links as well. Gotitbro (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're sure that all of those links should be to the TV channel article, that's easy to do. But can you be certain that none of them actually refer to one of the other topics on the disambiguation page? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @R'n'B: Yes, I'm certain that all links on there are for the TV channel. Gotitbro (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited T-Series (company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trishul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Google Dictionary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IIFL company logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Google search dictionary.png, which you've attributed to Google. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AF Screenshot.png, which you've attributed to acronymfinder.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shezan International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Private (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Talk:Dehradun: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your reversion; from the cited reference given, the changes are factual, not vandalism. Please take this to talk if you still disagree. I do think the editor is an employee of the company and needs to declare potential conflict of interest, but Bloomberg News is considered a reliable source. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 20:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bahria Town, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is in reference to your move of District courts in India earlier today, please see: Wikipedia's manual of style on capitalisation of stuff, basically, as you probably already know, anyting barring proper nouns should not be capitalised, but, anything else shouldn't be. So, things like 'Saharanpur District Court' would be written in capitals, an article about the concept of district courts in—in general—should be written in the lower case. Cf. Prime Minister of India and prime minister, President of the United States and president, Governor-General of India and governor-general et al. Don't be afraid to ask me if you've got any other doubt. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SshibumXZ: I see the issue with capitalization but then the page should have been moved to "District courts of India", as all references in the article state it, not to District courts in India. I am going to move the page to District courts of India, if there any issues let me know. Gotitbro (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi !

Thanks for going through my edits on the article on Nuclear Triads. I have various independent sources (not wiki articles) that confirm that Pakistan successfully tested SLCM Babur III in January 2017. The test was conducted in the Arabian sea by the Pakistan Navy and SPD, and the press release includes footage of the cruise missile during it's launch and flight over sea and land.

Regarding referencing, I understand I am rather new to referencing on wiki pages, therefore i'll try to double check and correct mistakes where they exist. Please let me know if you have any pointers.

Please see the following articles related to this matter:

Press release tweet with missile launch footage (ISPR Press Release)

Articles (Article 1)

News and media (Dawn, The Diplomat) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAG Baron (talk • contribs) 00:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AAG Baron: Yes, its correct that Pakistan tested the underwater nuclear missile Babur 3 but it still hasn't been tested from a submarine, it was launched from "an underwater, mobile platform" (per the tandfonline.com source), which is what qualifies as a nuclear triad. From the T&F source:

Once it becomes operational, the Babur-3 will provide Pakistan with a triad of nuclear strike platforms from ground, air, and sea. The Pakistani government said the Babur-3 was motivated by a need to match India’s nuclear triad and the “nuclearization of [the] Indian Ocean Region”.

The missile isn't even operational as of now. ISPR press release is not to be used per WP:PRIMARY, Dawn is just a rehash of the press release, The Diplomat is good. Also see what has been mentioned on the Babur missile article itself:

"On 9 January 2017, Pakistan conducted a successful launch of the Babur III missile from an underwater mobile platform. The Babur-III has a range of 450 km and can be used as a second-strike capability. It has been speculated that the missile is ultimately designed to be incorporated with the Agosta 90B class submarine which has been reported to have been modified. However no such tests have been carried out yet."

I'd recommend not adding the PK section in the Nuclear triad article as of now, if you want add it under the "Suspected triad powers" in the article and tweak the text to say that Pakistan is still developing its program. I see that you undid mine and another editor's reverts without providing a valid reason, this is not considered good and you should always discuss such changes rather than reverting multiple editors. I have undone your edits for now, let me know of there are any other concerns. Gotitbro (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the evidence is sufficient as for the successful tests of the SLCM Babur III, as for operational deployment, surely those details are not always sent out as press releases and can not be easily verified. I disagree regarding putting the edits under "suspected nuclear triads", there's far more evidence to support nuclear triad capability than lets say Israel (or previous triads, e.g. France). I reverted your edits because I was making changes to improve citations. I hope you understand, and take a few minutes before the changes are updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAG Baron (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dawn Media Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gotitbro, I am responding here to your comment at the Pakistan-adminstered Kashmir AfD, because there is too much noise there already. Frankly speaking that footnote is needed only for the AJK article because "Azad Kashmir" is a loaded POV term in India and Indian editors would come and change it to POK. But the pro-Pakistan editors insisted on a reciprocal footnote on Jammu and Kashmir as well, and so I acquiesced. The Gilgit-Baltistan page does not have any of these problems. It is a purely geographical name and has no POV's attached to it. So I am not sure what footnote to put there. Pinging DBigXray as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That footnote to me spoke out as to what others are calling the respective regions. While the AJK lead mentions that both it and GB are referred to as Pakistan-administered Kashmir no such thing is there on the GB article. A simple mention of this and preferably even (obviously reworked) a note would be great for users who land on the pages via the different terms. Gotitbro (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kautilya3 India calls the Gilgit Baltistan area as a part of PoK. UN and world also consider it a part of "Pak administered Kashmir", this can be noted as a "note" on the GB article.--DBigXrayᗙ 22:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly heads up on Sajjad Kishwar. I declined your speedy deletion request -- if you look at the sources, one is for a lifetime achievement award, which is definitely a good faith claim of importance. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrictramp: I see, I only marked the page as I could not find anything about the individual elsewhere. Not sure how notable the award is but even the linked article just makes a passing on the individual. Gotitbro (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be a reason to request deletion via PROD or AfD. Avoiding speedy is a lower standard -- A7 is meant to quickly delete articles like "Prof Jones is an Adjunct Professor at Podunk College who wrote an article once." Cheers! ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is mr afshaan memon from the Koyal.pk. Short details:

Koyal.pk is an Pakistani music streaming service. It was launched in 2018. The entire Pakistani Sindhi, pashto, balochi and Urdu music catalog is available to users in all over Pakistan. Koyal.pk features music from 7 languages including the major languages such as Urdu, Punjabi, Saraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Balochi, Hindko and other Pakistani regional languages.

As i can't create it my self so please need your help kindly create if you need any sort of information and data you can ask.

Thanks Afshaan Memon Koyal.pk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyal.pk (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro:, the section "Reactions" from the article 2019 Pulwama attack was removed and new article was created with the title Reactions to the 2019 Pulwama attack, please take a look. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 10:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting reliable govt. sourced content from articles like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar? Different Indian Govt. sources group states into different regions that need to be highlighted in the article. The regional terms like North India or East India are not mentioned in the article bodies either. If you want, different govt. definitions can be added in the article body and then highlighted in the lead. Check Germany which mentions it being part of "Central and Western Europe". Lead fixation can be corrected as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: We don't use government definitions for geographic places, only widely accepted ones are used and placing administrative territories in multiple regions is generally avoided. For Bihar, the general definition is that it is in eastern India as can be seen from Bihar at the Encyclopædia Britannica, for Uttar Pradesh as well it is generally accepted as a northern state ("Uttar Pradesh". Lexico UK English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. n.d.). The WP:STATUSQUO for a long time has been the same and I don't see anything that has changed. Gotitbro (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

States are government defined not geographic so I believe they need to highlight govt. definitions. Secondly, why should we rely on Britannica and Oxford for definitions only. Check Germany, lede mentions it to be: ...is a country in Central and Western Europe while Germany at the Encyclopædia Britannica mentions it in "north-central europe". And thirdly, is there a consensus regarding how a Political region be defined? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: As I said multiple regional locators such as those added by you and an editor before are avoided as confusing and unclear, Germany might as well be a exception here. It makes no sense to list a state as "north, north-central, eastern etc." all in one go which renders it completely meaningless and confusing. There is a reason the articles described the locations of the states as are definitively accepted. We'll follow the STATUSQUO here and the widely/generally accepted definitions as such. Gotitbro (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Germany be an exception. Obviously its geo-political position has been discussed heavily in Wikipedia. I agree that "north, north-central, eastern etc." looks confusing and can be cleaned but Germany being part of "Central and Western Europe" is just as confusing. The thing is, a lot of states do not fall in a specific region. Do you think Uttar Pradesh is absolutely Northern Indian, obviously it has a big chunk in Central part of India. And you didn't explain why we should follow "Britannica" like a sheep. European country articles do not follow it as it is. Sorry I'm not convinced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it should be discussed at the article of Germany. States might not a fall in a "specific" region but we aren't going to list a myriad zones in the lead. The generally accepted definitions were used before and Britannica is definitely a useful guideline, pointing to any resource does not mean being a sheep. The precedent and STATUSQUO has been clear for a long time, don't see anything that's changed since and needs convincing. Gotitbro (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide a concensus or rule regarding this. And why should we consider only Britannica? Doesn't make any sense since European articles do not copy paste from those sites. I agree that multiple regions mentioned might be confusing but we can correct those by mentioning which govt. sources are grouping the states within which zone. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD has to be straightforward and uncomplicated, by mentioning multiple zones/regions add on top of that mentioning govt. sources is the opposite of that. Moreover the govt. zones shouldn't be used to describe the location of the states especially when their location is widely described otherwise [also the government zones are for administrative purposes which do not consider the situation of places]. Britannica isn't the only source but it is definitely a guideline and has been used as the basis of a lot of articles on Wikipedia. What you're suggesting is just confusing and simply unencyclopedic. Gotitbro (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about removing the geographical identifier altogether. We can write it as "Uttar Pradesh is a state in the Upper and Middle Gangetic plains of India, etc, etc". That would be succinct enough. I saw a lot of articles where this has been done. I find the "northern India" confusing since if you see the geography neutrally, you'll find that UP is into central India as well. I don't think 2 sentences Britannica should have that much priority. Nonetheless, Britannica also mentions Uttar Pradesh as multiple regional "north-central India". And about the Bhojpuri region? The one in UP is northern Indian region and neighboring one in in Bihar be is eastern Indian? Kinda absurd don't you think? For identifying a state geographically, you need a geographic source not Britannica. I agree with some of the things you say but not all. I agree that mentioning multiple regions in the opening sentence doesn't look good but they are needed. If not in the first few sentences, then in the latter part of the lead. See Spain. And you want, that can be added into the article body as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is confusing as well, not everyone what the Gangetic plains are etc. While descriptors such as north-central etc. might be kind of acceptable they aren't applicable here as again these aren't accepted widely. The two sentences of Britannica do hold weight because if we go completely technical on geographic basis we'll be straying away from writing for an encyclopedia. Mentioning multiple regions in the lead is definitely not needed and adding a few supporting in the body isn't helpful wither. In the end fact of the matter is, UP is considered a northern state regardless of that it borders Bihar and similarly for other states. Being pedantic and adding a multitude of regions for technicality isn't going to help the WP:READER. Gotitbro (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Northern" is confusing and vague as hell. A neutral Non-South Asian will definitely think that Uttar Pradesh is not the same as Punjab or Kashmir location wise if he compares it in an Atlas. Gangetic plains or Ganges river is much more specific. And Indian govt. definitions for an Indian state is far from trivial information. I'm flexible enough to agree to some of your concerns but you are getting too much rigid with your POV using Britannica and Oxford dictionaries as supports. Even Great Britain article doesn't have a single reference to Encyclopedia Britannica. And what's this "accepted widely"? By Britannica? You don't seem to accept Britannica's definition of Uttar Pradesh as "north-central" either. Your definition that UP is "northern Indian" is unsourced. Secondly, Britannica is not considered much reliable and is only suitable when there's no source supporting a specific topic. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_115#Is_Encyclopedia_Britannica_a_reliable_source.- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The govt. sources used for zonal arrangements are definitely trivial and best ignored. I don't see anything related to POV in here, simply restoring the STATUSQUO before this multiple region conundrum is clearly not that. UP is clearly a northern state and was thus as such in the article from the beginning, I don't see any reason to unnecessarily table sources for this. [Though descriptions such as "north-central" are better than "northern, north-central, eastern" etc.] The location of Bihar can be discussed, its also best done at its Talk page. Yes, Britannica is tertiary but its definitely WP:RS and has served as the basis for many articles on Wikipedia even the ones being discussed now; so it definitely serves as guideline to follow for encyclopedic articles. Also look at the GA version of the article for Uttar Pradesh. Gotitbro (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a Govt. sources versus "widely accepted" Britannica sources, it is better to have the centralized discussion. I moved it to WP:IN. Check it. I forgot to mention it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I somehow got notified of it, but thanks for letting me know. I'd like to clarify that I meant widely accepted not just for Britannica but generally. Gotitbro (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using misleading edit summaries like you are currently doing. The earlier revert was perfectly explained and since you can't even understand WP:TERRORIST per your exlpanation that "refs does not fall under LABEL; the description can be discussed on Talk" then you need to better stop editing these articles. 39.42.106.141 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@39.42.106.141: Please tone down that WIKILAWYERING. You have removed references and legitimate content from the article which does not fall under LABEL or TERRORIST. If you have a problem with a specific descriptor change the word to something more neutral like militant but removing content under such WP:ES is not done. You are the one who is using "misleading" edit summaries. Gotitbro (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro, this is your second reminder that Khalistan Commando Force is under an Arbcom 1RR discretionary sanction (the first reminder is the editnotice displayed before you edit). Please undo your most recent revert, and discuss the content matter on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I see. I have tried to address the concerns in subsequent edits and have explained it on the Talk page. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I appreciate your efforts to discuss the situation. However, consensus has not been established, and you have reverted twice in violation of the restriction. If we don't enforce the restrictions as written then they become meaningless - if I don't follow up on you breaking the restriction then anyone else has a good reason to expect that they can revert multiple times too. So I have to ask you one more time, in good faith, to please undo your edit. I am dealing with the IP separately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have done so. I think my subsequent were useful hopefully they can help. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro appreciate your contributions and the fact that you agreed to self revert after being requested. Ivanvector as you can see on the talk page, the person behind this IP and Harmanprtjhj who are clearly only interested in whitewashing this page are not even responding to the talk page concerns or engaging in a fruitful conversation. WP:LABEL (which is a guideline and not a policy) doesn't really ban the use of the word terrorist, but these users believe it does and are actively enforcing this imaginary ban. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.Can we continue discussion on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Deletion_of_reliable_content_from_Indian_state_articles Many states such as Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra, Telangana are written with more than one region. For example Telangana is mentioned as centre-south part. So in the same way why cannot we write for Maharashtra south, centre and west? Many sources are writing it is also stretching in south and centre regions in India. Can we continue the discussion on that page? BelgaumGoan (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BelgaumGoan: I have already said what I wanted to regarding that there and don't want to get involved in the dispute further. Maybe other editors can help, hope you understand. Gotitbro (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: I added talk here because I think you were original person who changed those edits and argued for it. So who else can I discuss with? Do you think it is wrong to add central and southern, to describe it in more detail? BelgaumGoan (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BelgaumGoan: From what I can see in the discussion on the discussion board, the general opinion seems to be to leave the regions as they were before the recent edits, i.e., not including multiple regions in the lead like in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. So I would recommend not changing the lead. Gotitbro (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Then why are multiple regions mentioned for all South states? Telangana was called centre south, Karnataka and Kerala is called south west and Andhra Pradesh is south east. None of them are mentioned by Britannica definition. I am wondering why that double standard?? BelgaumGoan (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Santu Mukhopadhyay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali cinema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	home unreliable source to edits
	You do not provide substantial or reliable source to confirm that Naya Raipur/atal nagar which is scarcely populated and not dignified as a city by the state government, would be future capital wiki123 (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You remove a reliable source then say there is none. Please stop this edit warring. Gotitbro (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Hi. Me again.) You seem to be using the same edit summary, "rvt vand by IP", over and over again, in cases where that doesn't seem to adequately describe your changes. For example, how can this change possibly be considered reverting vandalism? In several other cases that I checked, I could not determine which edit(s) you were "reverting". So, for the benefit of other editors, could you please clearly specify which change(s) from the past you are undoing when you use (a form of) the word "revert" (unless you are undoing the last change(s) prior to yours, in which case that should be sufficiently clear to everyone)? This can be done by specifying a name and date of an edit, a revision number, or by using the semi-automated "undo" feature. And please try not to describe innocuous changes as "vandalism". Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcljr: Sorry, I meant to link the edits I was reverting in the edit summary but somehow forgot to do so. I came across many disruptive edits from the same IP range (2601:CB:8200.* / 2601:CB:*) Pakistani POVPUSHING on multiple articles. It is most likely the same user and had been warned on multiple IPs and even blocked on one too. I will make sure to clearly mark the edits I am reverting in the future. Gotitbro (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gotitbro. I have noticed that you have previously taken an interest in the Dawn Media Group Wikipedia page. I would like to point out that the page has quite a lot of outdated/ false information on it. Probably the most egregious error is in the page's introduction section, something that I have already pointed out on the talk page:

The second paragraph of the introduction states, "The group is headed by the Pakistani media mogul Hameed Haroon, its current CEO. His son, Masood Hameed Haroon, was found dead in his car by the police in Karachi in 2015." This is erroneous on two counts:

1) The person found dead by police in Karachi in 2015 was Masood Hamid (not Masood Hameed Haroon, as the article states).

2) Masood Hamid was a Director at the Dawn Media Group at the time of his death, but he was not related to the CEO, Hameed Haroon. The article states that he was Hameed Haroon's son, which is false.

More information on the demise of Masood Hamid, and his role in the Dawn Media Group, can be found here: https://www.dawn.com/news/1176553

I would be grateful if this could be corrected. It has been online for at least six months and is a demonstrable falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.104.235 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No Nazis is the guidance you were after. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nepali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

El_C 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I count four reverts: one, two, three, four. El_C 21:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I absolutely did not realize that and do not want to engage as such further. Please do consider the rest of what I've written in the unblock request as well. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop linking to disambiguation pages. The first couple of times you did it could be regarded as understandable mistakes, but after the number of times you have received notifications about it, continuing to do the same is serious carelessness. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: I am not sure I understand. I don't remember leaving any disamb links any time soon. Maybe you mistook me for someone else. Gotitbro (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a notification like User talk:Gotitbro#Disambiguation link notification for October 6, go back and check your edit - it means you have a wikilink to a disambiguation page. Even if it's unintentional (reverting a problematic edit), you should still fix it. It may be easier if you change your preferences. Lessee... In preferences, under "gadgets" down the page to "Appearance", about 5th from the bottom of that section, you can see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Check that, then go back to the Assam page and see the orange link to Nepali that shows up under the Assam#Education section. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 03:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript - it's been fixed since, but it shows up when looking at the diff. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: Oh, I see thanks for that. Not sure why I would need to be specifically objected about that @JBW: though, I am only human and oversight can occur. Most of the times I have fixed the disamb links (after being notified) anyway. Gotitbro (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be correcting disambiguation links "after being notified": you should not create disambiguation links in the first place. Notifications about disambiguation links are mainly for new editors who don't yet know about them, but you have received bot notifications about them 10 times, beginning in May 2018, so you clearly know about them. It's perfectly simple: never add a link to an article unless you know what you are linking to, and if you know it's a disambiguation page then don't link to it. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Alright, I'll keep that in mind. I didn't realize the function of the notifications, thanks for letting me know. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realise I might not have been explicit enough. Articles about personal names (which frequently list people with the name) are not disambiguation pages, but anthroponymy pages (the corresponding wikiproject is WP:APO). Anthroponymy pages serve a different set of purposes and follow different style guidelines compared with dab pages. – Uanfala (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: As I said the scripts are not doing any good on the name list page. While WP:INDICSCRIPTS policy may not exactly apple to such a page, the point about script cluttering,which eventually happens, stands. Hence, the I see it best to rmeove the scripts since other pages on Indian names don't have them as well. Gotitbro (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about topics associated with a language other than English typically have the name of that topic in the relevant languages, see MOS:FORLANG. This is especially relevant for anthroponymy articles, as these are primarily articles about words, so it's rather odd to hear that including the spellings of those words "does not do any good". Any name article that's not just a single sentence will typically have them (see a random sample: Irina, Ahmed, Sunil). And frankly, for all those years, this is the first time I'm seeing someone object to their use. If you still disagree with their inclusion, I urge you to propose your view at WT:APO. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I was just acting in good faith and removing the scripts which I believed were unnecessary as the name isn't specific to the scripts/languages added (moving us into script cluttering, see point above) and I still don't see their purpose, the better to thing to do would be just add a pronunciation or transliteration. Gotitbro (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a transliteration there, but you removed that as well. Yes, Devanagari isn't the only script that is relevant to the name, but it's the de facto standard for names of Sanskrit origin, and it's the most widespread of Indic scripts, and so should be comprehensible to a large segment of wikipedia's audience (which probably includes a lot of people who aren't familiar with the transliteration schemes in use). 15:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs)

@Uanfala: I have tried to better use the script for Sanskrit, see edit. You are right about the Sanskrit Devanagari script use, but then the use should be made explicit, the problem arises when specific modern languages are added, Hindi/Urdu etc. (leading to the script cluttering issue). Gotitbro (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gotitbro, I am here to discuss you about the revert you made in Kalapani territory. In the revert you made is baised ehich is against wikipedia's policy. So, before doing edit war discuss about it in the talk page.Rawal Bishal (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawal Bishal: Please do the relevant WP policies, such as WP:POVPUSH before making such egregious comments on User Talk pages. The version I restored was a stable you reverted it without any relevant reason reading POV material to the article. Gotitbro (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   You are welcome to edit in this article but before doing anything you should have references and evidences and you should write the reason why you did it. If you are doing a big edit then describe it in the talk page.Rawal Bishal (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

You clearly don't know what is and isn't allowed on Wikipedia, please go read the WP:Five Pillars and specifically WP:NEUTRALITY. Also, I have not added anything to the article I have only reverted WP:POV edits made by you. Gotitbro (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gotitbro, the changes you made onHira Devi Waiba and Bipul Chettri is not valid. You have removed category 'Nepalese Folk singer' and everything relating to 'Nepali' and 'Nepalese'. Let me make you aware that there are 2,926,168 Nepali people (Indian Nepali citizens) living and citizens of sovereign India and this populous is referred to as 'Nepalese' too. 'Nepali' 'Nepalese' is not just a citizen of the country Nepal. It is also a language and prefix to other expressions i.e. Nepali song, Nepali movie, Neplai clothes, Nepali food etc. Not all of these have to originate from the country Nepal. To seal the argument further it is not necessary anyone singing an English song has to be from England. One can sing an English song can be categorized as 'English language singer'. Thanks. Tabletop123 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabletop123: The categories you are mentioning are for the citizens/nationals of Nepal just because someone speaks the Nepali language does not make them a Nepali/Nepalese citizen. There are other relevant categories for that, like Category:Nepali-language singers, Category:Nepali-language poets, you should use them rather than the ones for Nepali citizens. Gotitbro (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an article about this subject? Please give your opinion here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian Sign Language requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How Tf is stating the ethnicity of the people who died vandalism. That crowd was more than 95% Punjabi. What justification is there for calling them Indian? Explain it to me. AnonymousFixer (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonymousFixer: No WP:RS on the subject lists the dead ethnically, you are just WP:POVPUSHING here. Moreover, your edit summaries which state the term Indian as derogatory is simply vandalism. And keep your language WP:CIVIL on Wikipedia. Gotitbro (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Great Gama. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kthxbay (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kthxbay: Do you even check what you're reverting? I was clearly undoing vandalism by an IP who added "Indian" to the lead. Do not blindly revert anything and then post non-sensical warning templates on user talk pages. Gotitbro (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Oh I just checked. Regret this.Kthxbay (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hi, I see that you just reverted an edit from back May in Samosa, but I don't understand why. You didn't leave an edit summary. The edit looks ok to me, it doesn't look like vandalism. Could you please explain the problem? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU: Just reverting disruptive edits by a block evading IP hopper. The cat isn't correct as well the cuisine is not specific or even inherent to the Muhajir community of Pakistan (migrants from India at the time of partition). Gotitbro (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I, too, am confused about your revert to Grid plan. The info looks well-sourced (haven't checked when it was added, but there have been quite a few edits since). There was some interference in that section by 167.217.31.60 (now blocked), but that was reverted soon afterwards. Can you please ping me with a reply to this? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: The original para referred to the ancient cities of the Indus Valley Civilization (Mohenjo-daro, Harappa) which was later edited to insert cities of an entirely different region and quite later time period [which should not have been on the top of the History section at all]. This was then laced over by a Pakistani POV [unneeded mention of Pakistan, then the addition of the modern city of Islamabad to the section]. Hence, I removed it. Gotitbro (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>haven't checked when it was added

I linked the original POV edit by the IP in my edit summary by the way. Gotitbro (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the link to the original edit. There does seem to be something worth retaining there though, without mentioning Pakistan and with a decent citation. I might just restore that bit. Thanks for getting back to me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalising sourced information the excuse of blocked users only works for pov or vandalised content your clearly upset with Pakistan being mentioned in ancient terms in distillation but this is not India its Wikipedia where sources matter not blind nationalism which you maybe used to. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@31.205.18.37: We are supposed to work with each other but if you make personal attacks and allegations I obviously would not be able to work with you. Firstly you do not make personal remarks on users as you clearly did above (read WP:PERSONALATTACKS). Secondly, I undid that edit as it was made by a problematic IP who was blocked, if you had politely explained that the particular edit is fine I most likely would not have reverted you but your personal attacks made me think that your edits were in WP:BADFAITH. Lastly my edit summaries are "generic" because that's what they are supposed to be [simple and straightforward] (see WP:EDIT SUMMARY) and when I'm reverting problematic editors I clearly link to their edits (most of the edits where you have made allegations against me are reverts to such editors).

This is what happened in the Ladakh article where the Category:Territorial disputes of Pakistan was ridiculously added to places which have no disputes by an IP (you even quite incorrectly reverted me and restored the vandalism by the IP in some of these). I have myself re-added the category to Ladakh (see discussion below). Regarding the distillation article I have no intention of further engaging there, if your conduct was polite I wouldn't have reverted you in the first place. And with regards to the Nagaland article you are reinserting to the lead an edit by a user who mass added lines to UNPO [its not the UN], an organization which has no bearing, these lines were also added to Sindh and Balochistan and were also rightly removed. I hope you an see why this isn't an acceptable line in the lead or anywhere in such articles.

And what you were/are doing following my edits everywhere and without heed reverting them constitutes WP:WIKIHOUNDING, i.e. harassment of users. If you tone down your personal attacks and rhetoric and stop hounding me then maybe we can get somewhere otherwise this is impossible. Gotitbro (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a bit confused maybe but the entire wolrd recognises Jammu and Kashmir disputed territory but you deleted the category stating disputed by Pakistan why is that? Then you moan about others adding categories you did the same to Ladakh. I will make sure experianced editors are made aware of your blatantly biased editing regarding Pakistan 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@31.205.18.37: What edit are you edit even talking about, point me to it rather than making baseless threats about reporting me. Your personal attacks on me don't already put you in a great place at all. Gotitbro (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jammu and Kashmir article pretending you dont remember ? You removed the category which states its Pakistans territorial disputes 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough, IP. Either cite the diff or go do something else. El_C 18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@31.205.18.37: I am waiting for the specific edit. Gotitbro (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]] and [[3]] clearly pov pushing he also removes any mention of South Asia as in India that term is regarded as Anti national. Please explain your above edits now. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@31.205.18.37: I was just reverting edits by a vandal IP have not made further edits after that same with my other edits (all of which link to the edit I am undoing). And stop projecting your biases on me if you continue with your labels and personal attacks, I will have to report you. Gotitbro (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you did make those edits and claied you didnt? Your excuse or removing pov etc makes no sense on most of your edits which vandal ip was it? That category has been there for a long time but you deleted it based on fictious vandal ip claims this is the bias I am talking about. Gilgit Baltistan has this category and so should Jammu and Kashmir along with Ladakh. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your vendetta against me I have clearly linked the original edit made by the vandal IP in my edit summary, the same vandal IP whose nonsensical edits you restored in some of your edits without any reason. Ofcourse I don't remember every I made escpecially regarding vandalisms. Anyway I am not going to continue with these discussion anymore as you clearly have something to take out against me and I want nothing of that. Gotitbro (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against you personally just your pov edits on certain articles the diffs I provided demonstrate that explicitly again the vandalism excuse means nothing as Gilgit-Baltistan also has a catgeory mentioning Indian territorial disputes. 31.205.18.37 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, Gotitbro is not a 'nationalist' editor. He is a perfectly fine editor. This is possibly some misunderstanding.

Gotitbro, let us agree that all the top-level political units will get listed as "disputes" of both the countries. That would include Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh, but not Aksai Chin because it is not clear if Pakistan claims Aksai Chin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I only made that edit on Ladakh as I was just reverting vandalisms by an IP, who BTW was adding "Territorial disputes of Pakistan" to places such as Delhi and what not. This is what prompted me to undo the edit than anything else. Regarding the second edit linked by @31.205.18.37: that was for a category page and I don't think we have added territorial dispute cats to any of them which wouldn't make sense anyway. Gotitbro (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is saying, Gilgit-Baltistan is listed in Category:Territorial disputes of India. Why isn't Ladakh being listed in Category:Territorial disputes of Pakistan? I am saying we should list it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you regarding the second diff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Done. As I said the only reason I removed it was was while reverting mass vandalism by an IP. Gotitbro (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, please see the article on the British Raj, Princely states were not considered apart of British India. Please revert your edits Hammad.511234 (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammad.511234: Wikipedia articles are not a source and I've already told you that princely states are considered a part of British India on Wikipedia. You are editing against consensus and have already been notified about ARBIPA sanctions on India/Pakistan articles. Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just said wikipedia articles are not a source... The claim on the wikipedia article is sourced. Hammad.511234 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammad.511234: As I've that article does not matter nor what the sources therein say. We treat princely states as part of British India on Wikipedia and that is reflected in infoboxes. Your removals have no WP:CONSENSUS and you shouldn't proceed further as such. Gotitbro (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Princely states were associated with British India, that's for sure, but that doesn't make them legally or historically apart of it. If princely states are apart of British India as per Wikipedia consensus, then why are you changing people's places of birth to "British India," entirely. Why not leave it as "Srinagar, Kashmir" etc. Point is, consensus doesn't change facts backed up with sources, and can be argued and changed. Hammad.511234 (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammad.511234: That is vague and what your doing is too. Princely states did not exist independently and that is what's shown not just for the British Empire but other states that existed under various previous empires (Mughal's etc.) in infoboxes. Your facts are your POV and clearly aren't going consensus that has existed for long. Gotitbro (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Princely states were semi independent, their capital was not Delhi, like British India's was, they did not use the same currency or postal service etc. And by definition as mentioned on the British Raj page, were not legally considered apart of British India Hammad.511234 (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hi, probably you need to see this, seems like an old POV pusher. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

With due respect sir/madam, I would love to know the reason for this change on this particular page. The fact regarding her name has been clear from a much longer time. The addition of the word "Bux" is actually wrong. Unmarried Muslim women, either use Bano or Banu and not their father's surname. They usually use the surname of their husband after their marriage. I have been extensively editing her page from more than two years and have looked on for various sources. I would request you to look into this matter at the earliest. [[[User:Vrishchik|Vrishchik]] (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)][reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sudhir (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]