User talk:Aman.kumar.goel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2018

• Thanks sir, I will make sure that I comply with same.

Regards Aman (talk)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Aman.kumar.goel, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to DRDO Anti-Radiation Missile have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Gazoth (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

My bad. Didn't know that it has to work in that way. I'll modify the language. Regards Aman (talk)

Hi Aman, it was the first bullet under Bear these points in mind in the welcome message above. Please look through all the points mentioned there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Surgical strike. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the issue I think have started post my edit on February 27 which was followed by its revert. Though there have been debates, I have been getting same response repeatedly and nil change in article. I am able to debate and would appreciate to settle it if someone meddles instead of messing up with a number og users. Regards Aman Goel (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

When there are disagreements you need to discuss them on the talk page and aim to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS. If discussion alone doesn't achieve it, you need to use WP:Dispute resolution procedures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tibetan people

You didn't explain your edit, so with those recent edits there is really no justification for reverting them. Please explain what you're doing, esp. in contentious areas. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Tibet is an autonomous region of PRC and has earlier existed as independent for long period. Tibetans are concentrated in China, especially concentrated in Tibet region of China. I thought, specifying that will be better. And sorry, didn't know the Tibet topic is that contentious. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Bharatiya Janata Party does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the shuffling I conducted was only based on order of letters. Hindutva was an India specific version of Hindu nationalism and I added one more vital part of party's ideologies Cultural nationalism with ref. I will make sure that summary is there next time. And wondering if allowed to restore it. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean alphabetical order. But, no, the current order is based on prominence in reliable sources, and that should not be altered. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand and will take care from now on. Regards Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the update on 35A GSwarnkar 09:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

S5-class submarine

Hello there. I see that you have created article S5-class submarine. I just want to mention that the article has previously been deleted a number of times (1; 2; and 3) for a number of reasons. Please have a look and make sure that such issues do not reappear, or the article will again be nominated for deletion by someone. Thanks. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will make sure that only sourced content finds its place in article. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aman. I have explained on the talk page of the article about why a source in the article is highly credible. Since you created the article, it would be nice if you could agree or disagree to my opinion by writing on the talk page. Regards, VaibhavafroTalk 07:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Aman. In your recent edit in the article S5-class submarine,you added that four boats are planned to be built as per the Rajya Sabha TV discussion. When I watched the discussion, I didn't find any mention of 4 boats. Could you please clarify.--VaibhavafroTalk 16:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Watch flash at 10:59.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.-VaibhavafroTalk 01:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: I have created and added an image of S5 in the article. Just notifying you.--VaibhavafroTalk 07:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Is that credible + do you hold copyright for the same?Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I do. I have created it using Paint-3D on Windows-10. I have explained it's credibility in the description of the Image. And models of INS Arihant that are present on Commons since a decade ago were made using the same assumptions.--VaibhavafroTalk 07:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Look at this image. This was created on MS Paint using the same assumptions back in 2009 when only 1 grainy pic of Arihant in dockyard was available that didn't even show its back portion. It is still used today. Any questions?-VaibhavafroTalk 07:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: Unofficial drawings have been used since time immemorial on Wikipedia. See this as example.-VaibhavafroTalk 12:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of S5-class submarine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on S5-class submarine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Nahal^(T) 08:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@NahalAhmed: As an administrator has removed the speedy deletion tag, I would like to learn why article was immediately put for speedy deletion without even apprising the editor about any problem? The article had WP:RS. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

NIligiri

Though the names are revealed you never know which ship is going to get what name. Specially when there are 2 builders maybe the first ship from GRSE is named what in wiki as Himgiri. So naming ship now is kind of misnomer.

Shashpant (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ship names have been cited by a navy personnel. They will continue in same order they were built earlier. FYI, Nilgiri-class frigate was first ever made in India frigates of Indian way. Their nomenclature legacy is being repeated just. It's safe to assume previous order as it was cited as it is by official and "last ship" was called INS Mahendergiri by him. Still, if anything changes, we will correct it. It's better to keep ship names than pennant number when they have been cited already. RegardsAman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A small request

Hi Aman. I won’t be on Wikipedia for a while. Can you add this article to your watch list? I have created it recently. (Just incase vandals try to disrupt it.) Regards—VaibhavafroTalk 06:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I will. I was myself looking for such an article after revision of National Security Strategy & doctrine. Thanks Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!—VaibhavafroTalk 07:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(tps) Hey Vaibhavafro, nice work on that article. Kudos. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sarvatra: Thanks!-VaibhavafroTalk 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sarvatra: It would be unfair if I don’t give credit to @Naval Gazer: I have copied a portion of the article from Gazer’s work in Defence Cyber Agency.-VaibhavafroTalk 15:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating S5-class submarine.

User:Fitindia while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

I have unreviewed the page as source is relying on a Twitter tweet nothing official from the Indian navy WP:CRYSTALBALL

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Fitindia}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 15:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The particular part of development (submarine design) only relies on tweet. As source is a WP:RS and doesn't claim to confirm the design (calls it probable) on the ground that this design hasn't ever been built in India earlier and the tweet itself was from Vice President of India, I will only suggest to just have a second thought on that image only. Regards Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

hi there

Nice to meet you.

It has become apparent you are targetting me by reverting or challenging my edits specifically, oft without proper standing. It would be helpful if you could avoid doing so.

Thanks

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 89.242.133.245 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.133.245 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 

I actually once reverted one of your edits (Regional power where talk had concluded Pakistan as rather a sub-regional power) and coincidently opened your contributions where I witnessed a series of disruptive edits with no reasons or actual summaries rather complete PoV pushing. As those articles pertain to the topics I'm interested in, I exercised my rights to revert the ones I don't agree with a summary. I hereby, reject all your accusations of targeting "you" specifically and maintain my nature of surveillance of article. I rather propose WP:DR to reach consensus for those edits and not the accusing me of attacking you to keep those edits alive. Mine & those talk pages are open. I had proper standing in what I reverted instead those edits didn't have any ground. Regards Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I find it ironic to accuse me of "disrupting editing" whilst no other editors had issues with my edits except my contributions to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Ram_Das. This was resolved without problem.

Regardless, I do not wish to engage in any edit wars so I am happy to discuss my edits with you on our respective talk pages or better yet, on the talk pages of the articles in focus. I see you are an experienced wikipedian and would be happy (and obliged) to engage in meaningful conversation with you, given that we both strive our best for advocating a neutral stance rather than POV pushing knowing our sincere interest in these topics.

Happy editing bro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.133.245 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You may start to adding me to ping me on talk pages topic by topic.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman.kumar.goel (talk • contribs)

Talk on List of Highest Mountains

Hi bro,

Regards to your reversions of my edits on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_mountains_on_Earth, I'm slightly confused.

You said "Wikipedia articles mention only territories under control & not territorial claims. If we do for one country, we're supposed to do for all." However, on that page previously, the article mentioned territorial claims of India wherever China and Pakistan were mentioned. I therefore did exactly as you said and added territorial claims for all countries. If this is not satisfactory then perhaps we should remove all notes about territorial claims.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.133.245 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

India

May I suggest with respect that you not tinker with India, especially on its WP:TFA also. Please read WP:OWN#Featured_articles and raise the issue on Talk:India first and wait for some consensus to emerge. Note also that the edits on the India page are subject to discretionary sanctions imposed by ARBCOM. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thunberg edit

Please fix the sentence you recently edited. In it's current form ("Thunberg is known for her blunt, both in public and to political leaders and assemblies...") it is improper. I'd fix it myself, but would probably just add the text you deleted. Thanks, Geordie (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I never added such a comment. I removed the other one.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it was a set of boastful comment by some fan of Greta where he/she admires her to "brave", "blunt" and "matter of fact speaking" etc. It shouldn't have been added in a WP article at first place.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edit left the sentence broken--what does the adjective "blunt" refer to now? Geordie (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The sentence earlier too wasn't any less inappropriate. It was nothing more than a juvenile boasting with totally unencyclopaedic language made without any consensus or high quality source citing any events. Let me refer to source to replace those sentences.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The material has been in the article for at least a month; you're going to need consensus on the talk page for your change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm starting to realize that this may be a language barrier thing. Don't worry about it. Have a good day. Geordie (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Just the language used and framing of sentences. I've left my response on talk page.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. It isn't a "language barrier thing". The boastful comments are, as you say, unencyclopedic, and should be removed. The other editor says we need consenus to remove it. Why that would be, I have no idea. If you remove it again, I will back you up (ie publicly thank). Cheers MartiniShaw (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Defence Space Agency

Thanks for adding this to your watchlist.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 13:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aman.kumar.goel reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: ). Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nuclear Suppliers Group, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages P5 and Economic Times (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) 07:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

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) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, if you are actually reading this message (as it was delivered by a bot),

It was delighting for me that you could reckon me helpful for mentoring newbies. Unfortunately, I'm myself a new editor who recently has been absorbing markup language on wikipedia. Coding has very remote relations to my job as of now. So, I don't even have much hold of coding I had learnt in past. I edited a document as I can see and interpret how markup works. I'm an editor with a fetish to keep statistics and lists updated. So, I tried, practiced and learnt. But that doesn't mean that I'm an expert editor and actually able to create documentation tasks I'm alien to. It will be my pleasure yet if I'm able to help someone on English Wikipedia. But again I'm afraid how much wait they will have to do. I'm at work for 80-90 hours a week. You accidentally caught the wrong person. Still, thanks for asking. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 03:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Hello, I'm Sjö. I noticed that you recently removed content from Newcastle sex abuse ring without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sjö (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

An older unsourced edit was removed with an edit summary. RVV: Reverted Vandalism. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 12:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You removed sourced info, as the source mentioned the Indian background of one or more perpetrators. Your removal of the sourced info appear to be based on your personal opinion and your edit comment was misleading. Sjö (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 14:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting opinion

It would be helpful if you could offer your opinion on Talk:2019 Indian anti-satellite missile test#Requested move 27 November 2019.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 17:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting comments on MSMC move

It would be gracious of you to voice your valuable opinion on Talk:Modern Sub Machine Carbine/Archive 1#Requested move 2 December 2019. I have just finished updating that article and have proposed the rename.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 18:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	बहुत खूब भाई :) Sagnique (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Friendly notice

Hi Aman.kumar.goel. Happy to have a discussion. I see you are a fairly new user, so just a friendly notice: be careful with the Wikipedia:3RR rule since, if you revert once more, you will be blockable. Let's discuss constructively on the Talk Page if there are specific issues. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert

I see that you have already been alerted once--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I don't think my edit was contentious. What I went on adding was a general one liner consideration that was itself part of sources. As for second on mass shootings, it was my bad who didn't have a look on source and deemed it to be from conflicts. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 14:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for understanding and helping to improve the article. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 14:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Issue resolved in above section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Citizenship Amendment Act protests; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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. Points to note: 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 and 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. Please note that the article is under WP:1RR another revert will likely lead to an edit warring complaint followed by a block. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Red links

Doesnt always mean non notable. It may mean that the some one is yet to start an article ona notable topic. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 12:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A note of concern on your partiality

You made a very surprising comment on my talk page, over the course of repeated unconstructive edits by an ip on the article Indian National Army which I struggled to correct last month. You picked the issue that I had reverted, but appeared to have entirely glossed over and given a free pass (not that it your role to do either) to the other party, which immediately flags your intention and partiallity. I have noticed a trend in India related articles of mass-swamping of similar approaches from a coterie of editors who spring up from nowehere, I take this to be something similar. Nonetheless, be careful that this destroys your own standing as a contributor, and flags you up as potentially disruptive editor. In the spirit that you left a warning message on my talks page (I have been in wikipedia long enough to not need reminding of 3RR from yourself), consider yourself warned.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You will be warned of 3RR whenever you will violate it or get close to it. There is nothing wrong with warning you about such edit warring while you are at it. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Vyommitra

Hi Aman, dropping a note of appreciation for the changes made to the Vyommitra. Csgir (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure that I could contribute something appreciable. The article however needs a lot of expansion. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 13:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

ISRO'S Budget

Hey brother, I reverted your edit on Isro about budget. The budget of Rs1347 cr is given to Department of Space, not only to Isro. ISRO's individual budget will be clarify after DOS will release breaked down budget. I hope you got that. If you feels I'm wrong please ask me. Thanks Brown Chocolate (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 00:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/The Establishment (Pakistan) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Za-ari-masen (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: That was a discretionary sanctions notice not a blocking or warning template, and users making contentious edits are notified about sanctions in place on highly disruptive editing areas like South Asia. Your incorrect warning here to this user and removal of the DS from your talk page is highly problematic, other users need to know that you have been notified about sanctions on topic areas. Gotitbro (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Article Seems Confused

The article Vaidya Rama Kant Mishra seems a bit confused. What do you think of this article?Streetlight401 (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Will work on it someday. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 09:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Siddha medicine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Aman.kumar.goel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for edit warring (not violating 3RR to be specific) and I admit that it was a wrong move on my part to edit war and I am willing to avoid edit war until we have reached a clear consensus. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per discussion below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ping Ivanvector. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is your first block for edit warring but I see that you have been warned before. We have a bright-line rule about three reverts, but that is only one technical definition of an edit war. Any time you are repeatedly reverting other editors, you are edit warring, and edit warring is not allowed, period.

Fortunately, our policy on edit warring contains a section describing what you can do to avoid getting into edit wars and finding yourself blocked again. Before I unblock you, can you please summarize the advice given in Wikipedia:Edit warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars? You may also find the essays WP:ALTREV and WP:ROWN to be useful advice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I understand that edit warring is not allowed and participating in an edit war or making reverts in opposition to an edit which requires discussion (not outright vandalism) constitutes edit warring, especially in "controversial topics where views views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring". I agree with this definition and plan to avoid edit warring from now on. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 19:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I trust that you will; please feel free to ask if you need help. I will unblock you momentarily. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Establishment (Pakistan)

Hello! Your submission of The Establishment (Pakistan) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Delhi Riots article

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at North East Delhi riots. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at North East Delhi riots shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your edits here, when reverted by any user, should have have participated in the talk page rather than removing again, it is considered as edit war and is considered a vandalism. The consensus is not about addition of picture but the removal of picture, so don't play over smart here. You edit of removal here. And don't use NPOV in the article. If such edit behavious continues, I afraid, it will lead you to get blocked again, and this will be permament. Dey subrata (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your diligent work on North East Delhi riots. Thanks for your efforts towards cleaning up a messy but highly crucial article. Bharatiya29 22:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

North East Delhi riots

The edits were made per the request of an admin. Please see the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, which "admin" are you referring to? You have no consensus for your edits and you have just violated 1RR given this recent revert came after revert you made hours ago.  I recommend you to self-revert ASAP to avoid any block. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 03:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you try to get me blocked? I responsed to a talk page post by admin Vanamonde93. I am a competent senior editor, who has maintained the FA status of India for 13 years. Do you seriously think I do not know how to source? Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please also see admin El_C's post welcoming my presence there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Funny that even after so much 'hard work' you still don't even know that an involved admin on talk page is equivalent to an involved non-admin editor like you, and also funny that you don't even know that uninvolved admins stay out of content dispute but can decide if consensus was held if it is clear. That is not the case here. As for the rest, see WP:BATTLE. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 03:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't make sense of your language, but why do you have hard work in quotes? I did not use that expression. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not surprised with that. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 07:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)