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!

Revision

Why was my edit overturned? I have quoted multiple verifiable web / media sources on https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chhota_Shakeel&diff=819048718&oldid=819048009 The speculation lies in the manner in which the subject possibly died-Not the death in itself-Please revise your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandfrontier (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandfrontier, The information you have added is speculation since the news reports themselves claim that this is per sources and not yet officially confirmed. There have also been other media reports that Mumbai police is trying to confirm this. Wikipedia has strict guidelines for in WP:BLP for articles which are biographies of living persons. We have to be careful when adding content to these pages. Please open a discussion on the article talk page if you disagree. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Do U love your family?

I love you too my friend, thanks for all your help! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.161.219.114 (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Love me so much?

I see you been following my uploads on Commons. I don't know if you have set some kind of alert/notification on my ID or whatever . It would be better if you restrict yourself to your field of work and not indulge in a personal rivalry with me , that too on a topic you know nothing about (locomotives in indian Railways). And please spare me of those blocking warnings. I can still upload anything, do any edit even already being blocked (your IP address changes every time you reconnect to internet 😊)

Last but not the least, my latest upload is also a copy. Let's see if you can get it deleted or not. Game's on! Diligentemu (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Diligentemu I think you give yourself too much importance and I have no rivalry with anyone. I only follow the guidelines laid down by Wikipedia. You should be good as long as you follow them. Please careful of what you edit or upload since you have already been warned multiple times and your current statements are insinuating that you might evade blocks in the future. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Just for information I have now blocked User:Diligentemu as he clearly doesnt understand our copyright policy and the statement above shows intent to avoid and continue to upload copyright material, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

MilborneOne Thanks for the update. I have also initiated a SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Diligentemu for the user because I suspect they have a sockpuppet. Spectacular99 also uploaded the same image on Wikimedia commons after the image uploaded by Diligentemu was deleted for CR violations. And Diligentemu immediately added the image to the article which leads me to believe that they might be the same person. They also seem to have a huge overlap in editing articles given that they have a limited number of edits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

MilborneOne My suspicions were correct. The user has now been blocked for Sockpuppetery. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)

Could you please stop with the constant reverts on this article under weak pretenses, my edits are well-explained and are always there for a reason. The text you added removed source attribution, even though the report clearly mentioned "unnamed" sources; yet you changed it to "M. Ilyas Khan states", inexplicably as if they're facts coming from him. The same article also quoted detection of movements and the subsequent retreat, which you altered without reason. And even more misleading is the text "to help the Pakistani Army in case the border clashes got worse" [1], which has been added as a matter of fact whereas here is the text of the source where it is a rhetorical question: ...there had been an increased influx of militants in the valley. Are they in the area to help the army in case border skirmishes with the Indians get worse? No one is sure. I'm going to review any further changes made to this article, in the meantime please ensure that your edits do not stray from or misrepresent the sources. Thank you, Mar4d (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mar4d My edits have not been reverts but copy-edits of the content on the page so please do not mislabel them. I have not removed any sourced attribution. The article clearly does not attribute that fact to the locals but mentions it independently. I have mentioned facts about the retreat stating that were beaten back. It is you who added puffery which is not required. I apologize for the question mark text and I have reverted that aspect of the content. I would strongly suggest you 2 things. First, discuss these issues on the article talk page. Second, your edits themselves have been not been ideal. You removed a lot of text on the pre-text of Copy-right violation when you could have been easily copy-edited. So please do not consider yourself to be the ultimate authority on the subject. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, WP:COPYVIO text is not okay and not acceptable. So please don't tell me it's okay. You clearly do not seem to be able to distinguish between "puffery" and source attribution. My edits reflect what is in the source, which is verbatim quoted thrice in the BBC article as follows: A similar advance by the Indians in the Dudhnial area of Neelum valley further north was beaten back by the Pakistanis..; The Pakistani fire sent them scurrying back to their bunkers...; The Pakistanis did not take long to get their act together and fired back from the remaining bunkers, pushing the Indian guns back from the ridges overlooking the valley. So unless you are calling out the actual source as a piece of puffery, this obviously does not make sense and is not true. Mar4d (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d I somehow find it very convenient that you exactly found the text which mentioned places where Indians had advanced to be WP:COPYVIO and removed them. From NPOV point of view you should have re-added the text albeit after modifications. You clearly failed to do this. Secondly, "beaten back" which I have mentioned and so as the article means retreat. There have been mention of 3 incidents mentioned in the BBC article. I have given equal weight all 3 incidents. First, you removed information on the first 2 incidents on WP:COPYVIO and did not re-add it back after a copy-edit. Next, you seem to give weight to another incident in which the Indians were beaten back by attaching it more weight. The additional text of "to their bunkers" does not add any more information to the reader and is thus unnecessary word inflation on your part without adding anything new. Also it was in this incident that a Pakistani soldier was injured which you also removed and had to be added back. Again, if you wish to discuss the content of the edits, take it to the article talk page. I would recommend you to give equal weight to all aspects of that report not just some parts. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a baseless excuse. The text I restored was, as you will find, longstanding in the article before it was modified in this poor edit, which basically broke the prose and plagiarised the BBC article. This was then followed by your edit which basically altered the existing text without explanation, whilst rewording the copyright violation. I have added no word inflation, beaten back "to their bunkers" was already there and it is how the source narrates the details. Again, you are making up your own assumptions whilst trying to justify a poor edit. Mar4d (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Long standing does not mean that it was necessarily NPOV. You are falsely equating the two. The earlier (long-standing per your claims) text did not cover the reference completely and only made mention of a single from 3 incidents in the reference. All that I have done is added information about the 2 other incidents and given equal weight to all of them. The earlier text "beating back to the bunkers" is word inflation of one of the incidents where other incidents had absolutely no mention. Your earlier edit of removing the text (added by another user) which described the other 2 incidents on pre-text of Copy-right violation was in poor light (in my opinion). If it was a truly NPOV, you would be edited the text out and given equal weights to all 3 incidents. Instead, you chose to argue here on the fact that text was already there and thus was not word-inflation. I have not altered the existing text beyond what is mentioned in the reference. My edit was meant to give equal weight to all incidents in the reference not just one as was the case earlier. About the text with the question mark, I have already self reverted that aspect since I agree with you that it should not have been included. Again, discuss the content on the article talk page as other editors are also involved in the page, not just you or me. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you're unhappy over plagiarised text being removed, and ludicrously(!) calling it in "poor light" says a lot about you as an editor and shows you have a serious lack of understanding of Wikipedia's basic rules. There is no excuse, ifs or buts that will be accepted for this case. This is the type of stuff that gets people blocked. And if I see another copyright violation being added to the article, I will definitely remove it again. In the future, do not spin it any other way. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d You are misunderstanding my statements. I agree with you that the copy-vio text had to be removed. My concern was the fact that you chose to remove the text (correctly) for COPYVIO but did not re-add some aspects of it (which was in poor light). Please free to remove COPYVIO text again on this or any other article but if it adds new information which was not present then it is our responsibility as editors to ensure that it is included after due process. To reiterate, I am unhappy over the aspect that you did not re-add parts of it which were missing after a copy-edit. But nonetheless, I re-added them myself which should have been the case with the editor who removed them. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, I am under no compulsion to do that. Wikipedia is a WP:VOLUNTEER service. If you want to reword it, feel free to do it yourself. Don't expect others to do it if they find and remove plagiarized material. There is no such requirement. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d I understand that and is the reason why I termed it our "responsibility" but one is expected to the right thing especially in cases when these edits might be on controversial topics. Some other editors have already been blocked in the recent past for removing sourced content under the garbs of COPYVIO. This was a case where it was warranted but in my opinion in poor light. Anyways, for the last time, if you have issue with the content as was the case this time, take it to the respective talk page. You are a senior enough editor to know this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:WDG 4G

Hello Adamgerber80. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:WDG 4G, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The user did not create this ban in violation of the block (they weren't blocked yet). Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Callanecc Thanks for the update. Sorry I did not understand this caveat in that CSD category. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

HAL Tejas ferry range:

I have posed legitimate questions in the talk page and have given reasons why the ferry range of 1750km with drop tanks is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. But, despite all this, without gving proper reasoning and based on the source you like, you are repeatedly editing out which has become unacceptable. Also, not specifying the number of drop tanks is even more foolish. Either be specific in your numbers or don't edit out others. I am also basing my numbers on source as well as on comparison with similar aircrafts.

Your acts are considered as vandalism at best