References at Operation Desert Hawk
Hi MrGreen1163. You added five references to Operation Desert Hawk, but two of them links to non-existent pages and say they were accessed in February.
- "Indo-Pakistani War of 1965." Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Indo-Pakistani-War-of-1965. Accessed 15 Feb. 2023.
- "Operation Grand Slam - 1965 War." Defence Journal, Dec. 2000, https://web.archive.org/web/20120415010504/http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/dec/grand-slam.htm. Accessed 15 Feb. 2023.
Would you let me know where you got these references from (for attribution), and would you quote a brief excerpt of what text they have supporting your claim? SilverLocust đŹ 13:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know that two of these citations no longer work. I will remove these and keep the other citations in place. Once I get home from my schooling I will update the result with accessible citations and add quotations to back my claim. Thank you.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 14:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The question is âwhere did you get these referencesâ.
Doug Weller
talk 21:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Online research after seeing the following excerpt from the Desert Hawk article in itself, "On 24 April, Pakistan launched "Operation Desert Hawk" a decisive thrust towards the Indian posts in the area deploying an infantry division and two armored regiments equipped with Patton tanks and field guns. The Pakistan Army captured four more posts and claimed the whole Kanjarkot stretch. With poor logistics and inferior military hardware, India had no other option than to retreat after offering decent resistance.", the term ceasefire negotiated by London is in clear reference to the Rann of Kutch conflict. Desert Hawk was only apart of the Rann of Kutch conflict as evident by other operations such as Operation Kabadi. I did some further research and then used claud for two other citations verifiable citations, which seem to not be accessible. It however seems there are no copyright issues with these two sources which is good. If you wish to learn more about Operation Desert Hawk, I recommend this. (By the way I use stuff like EasyBib to format citations for me since it is easier.)
https://phpisn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/collections/coll_india/documents/1965Chapter02.pdf
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 22:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- What is "claud"? That's where you got the two references in question, right?
Doug Weller
talk 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Claude is an AI assistant by Anthropoc that I thought was useful in gaining access to digital sources not easily accessible but still available on the internet, but apparently. Good news is that there was no copyright infringement in citing these two citations, as I had asked Claude for an excerpt to back the assessment (Operation Desert Hawk), however it seems the article is no longer viewable, as it was accessed in February. As per WP:C there was no copyright infringement which is good. I know that its best not to use Claude for citations but thankfully I don't use it for the majority of my citations anyways, its a tertiary option basically for me.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 13:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- My bad Doug I didn't link it properly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:C&redirect=no
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 14:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ MrGreen1163: Please go through all of your contributions and remove each fake citation you added, including any citation created by AI that you have not personally checked to verify that they are not fake. AI is not presently able to create genuine references. Thanks, SilverLocust đŹ 00:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- My bad Doug I didn't link it properly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:C&redirect=no
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 14:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Claude is an AI assistant by Anthropoc that I thought was useful in gaining access to digital sources not easily accessible but still available on the internet, but apparently. Good news is that there was no copyright infringement in citing these two citations, as I had asked Claude for an excerpt to back the assessment (Operation Desert Hawk), however it seems the article is no longer viewable, as it was accessed in February. As per WP:C there was no copyright infringement which is good. I know that its best not to use Claude for citations but thankfully I don't use it for the majority of my citations anyways, its a tertiary option basically for me.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 13:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- What is "claud"? That's where you got the two references in question, right?
Doug Weller
talk 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Online research after seeing the following excerpt from the Desert Hawk article in itself, "On 24 April, Pakistan launched "Operation Desert Hawk" a decisive thrust towards the Indian posts in the area deploying an infantry division and two armored regiments equipped with Patton tanks and field guns. The Pakistan Army captured four more posts and claimed the whole Kanjarkot stretch. With poor logistics and inferior military hardware, India had no other option than to retreat after offering decent resistance.", the term ceasefire negotiated by London is in clear reference to the Rann of Kutch conflict. Desert Hawk was only apart of the Rann of Kutch conflict as evident by other operations such as Operation Kabadi. I did some further research and then used claud for two other citations verifiable citations, which seem to not be accessible. It however seems there are no copyright issues with these two sources which is good. If you wish to learn more about Operation Desert Hawk, I recommend this. (By the way I use stuff like EasyBib to format citations for me since it is easier.)
https://phpisn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/collections/coll_india/documents/1965Chapter02.pdf
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 22:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The question is âwhere did you get these referencesâ.
Doug Weller
talk 21:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you please provide page numbers for the books which support the statement "Pakistani Victory"? Thanks! ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 17:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course! I'm not home at the moment but I will when I get home. Thanks!
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 18:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I've noticed you've also changed
Kurram incident to say "Pakistani Victory." May I ask why? Two of the sources are dead, with no archives, and the third one only states that Pakistan closed NATO's supply route. If you have access to the two dead sources, can you please link them here? Thanks.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 20:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there. The user who changed the U.S.-Pakistan skirmishes did not add any references or citations so I addressed the issue with them, and I reverted their edits, saying if they wanted to engage further to come to me directly instead of edit warring. The Kurram Incident is cited as a Pakistani victory and has for years due to the formal United States apology in the aftermath. I simply reverted the user's edits so if you need me to update the citations I can do so. But here's a link to the United States apology and the reopening of supply routes, hence why the Kurram Incident was cited as a Pakistani victory previously.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39529199
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 20:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- The Kurram Incident has, before September of this year, never been referred to as a Pakistani victory. An apology and reopening in no way means a victory. As a suggestion, would the following be fine:
- Result:
- Pakistan closes Nato supply route
- US apologizes for the incident
-
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 20:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thats a perfect result that you can add. Thank you.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done. If the sources don't explicitly say a Pakistani victory, would you be amenable to something similar on
PakistanâUnited States skirmishes?
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. As an editor my intention is not bias and we all make mistakes. I continue to improve by the day and I will take into note to not consider implications as a verified assessment. Thank you for your cooperation.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've decided to just outright remove the result in the infobox, since all of the apologies and border closures seem to be about individual skirmishes, and there doesn't seem to be a unified result for all the confrontations. If you disagree, just let me know. Thanks for your work!
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hillary Clinton actually issued a formal apology that is considered the end of the skirmishes on the Wikipedia page, which was July 4th, 2012. This apology is a formal apology referring to the overall skirmishes between the two nations. Here I'll show you.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/03/pakistan-dispute-nato-hillary-clinton
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ok, thanks, wasn't aware of that, I'll add it.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. It was great to resolve this with you, I hope we can work together again in the future. Happy editing!
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Same. Cheers! ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 21:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. It was great to resolve this with you, I hope we can work together again in the future. Happy editing!
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ok, thanks, wasn't aware of that, I'll add it.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hillary Clinton actually issued a formal apology that is considered the end of the skirmishes on the Wikipedia page, which was July 4th, 2012. This apology is a formal apology referring to the overall skirmishes between the two nations. Here I'll show you.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/03/pakistan-dispute-nato-hillary-clinton
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've decided to just outright remove the result in the infobox, since all of the apologies and border closures seem to be about individual skirmishes, and there doesn't seem to be a unified result for all the confrontations. If you disagree, just let me know. Thanks for your work!
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. As an editor my intention is not bias and we all make mistakes. I continue to improve by the day and I will take into note to not consider implications as a verified assessment. Thank you for your cooperation.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done. If the sources don't explicitly say a Pakistani victory, would you be amenable to something similar on
PakistanâUnited States skirmishes?
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- However make sure to refer to it as "NATO" MrGreen1163 ( talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thats a perfect result that you can add. Thank you.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there. The user who changed the U.S.-Pakistan skirmishes did not add any references or citations so I addressed the issue with them, and I reverted their edits, saying if they wanted to engage further to come to me directly instead of edit warring. The Kurram Incident is cited as a Pakistani victory and has for years due to the formal United States apology in the aftermath. I simply reverted the user's edits so if you need me to update the citations I can do so. But here's a link to the United States apology and the reopening of supply routes, hence why the Kurram Incident was cited as a Pakistani victory previously.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39529199
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 20:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I've noticed you've also changed
Kurram incident to say "Pakistani Victory." May I ask why? Two of the sources are dead, with no archives, and the third one only states that Pakistan closed NATO's supply route. If you have access to the two dead sources, can you please link them here? Thanks.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 20:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Aman Kumar Goel (
Talk) 18:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. A user named Jab1998 was reverting edits done by an administrator I believe, citing a U.S. victory without any citations and claiming the destruction of two Pakistani checkpoints. I reverted his edits as he engaged in edit warring without any citations, claiming "multiple news sources.". He was also warned previously on his talk page for nationalistic bias. Thank you for letting me know. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to add that the user "Jab1998" also has a history of disruptive edits. He was blocked from editing for 24 hours for consistently making disruptive edits. It also appears that Jab1998 engaged in an argument with FierySunset over Jab1998's repeated nationalistic bias. In reference to the NATO Attack in Pakistan in 2011, Jab1998 claimed the destruction of two Pakistani checkpoints with zero citations and contradictory to the article. Thanks. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 19:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh it seems this is a reference to the gaming. This was an incident yesterday in which I apologized to two administrators, as I wasn't aware it was a rule violation. Action was taken, and we have made an agreement for me to have 500 substantive and productive edits and to wait three months to apply for ECP to continue to grow this encyclopedia. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 19:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
|
âThe WikiChevronsâ | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of your sterling work in creating the military history article Battle of Hussainiwala. Great work, which is appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 23:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much!
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 23:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just checking that you are aware of the existence of
MilHist and its facility to
independently assess articles. Personally I rarely create a new article, there are so many existing ones needing improvement. Eg, look at the thousands of South Asian military history articles
needing improvement.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 17:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you! MrGreen1163 ( talk) 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I am a member of the Wikipedia military history WikiProject but I wasn't aware of the South Asian Task Force, thank you for informing me! MrGreen1163 ( talk) 21:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just checking that you are aware of the existence of
MilHist and its facility to
independently assess articles. Personally I rarely create a new article, there are so many existing ones needing improvement. Eg, look at the thousands of South Asian military history articles
needing improvement.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 17:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contribution(s). However, as a
general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as
Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947â1948 are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are
not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
MBlaze Lightning (
talk) 17:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gajar ka halwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eid. 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) 06:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
ITN recognition for 2024 Iranian strikes in Pakistan
On 18 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2024 Iranian strikes in Pakistan, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, MrGreen1163. Thank you for your work on Maula Bakhsh Khan (Ali Khan). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
IMO an edge case regarding wp:notability; I'm marking it as reviewed.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 18:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, MrGreen1163. Thank you for your work on Jinnahbhai Poonja. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 22:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! MrGreen1163 ( talk) 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi brother I noticed you made a page deletion but for no reason please explain whatâs wrong with the page then we will discuss about it 2001:8003:3F18:1C00:F5F7:C528:9763:9738 ( talk) 02:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello there. I nominated 1961 Kunar River Incursion for deletion due to it failing WP:GNG and WP:HISTRS. Two of the sources in the article are blog sites in Urdu and Persian that aren't credible. The third source is a passing mention of this incident which makes no mention of an Afghan victory. If anything it hints at the opposite:
- "When the Pakistani government in 1961 decided to call his bluff and to carry out a raid deep into Afghanistanâs Kunar province with some tribal support, it appeared clear that Afghanistan was no match for Pakistan on the battlefield (Farhang 1988)."
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 16:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Give me your instagram or something letâs debate
Kosa6814 (
talk) 23:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- What is there to debate regarding the lack of credibility here, but if you wish to discuss this with me, my discord is mrgreen1163. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 00:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Give me your instagram or something letâs debate
Kosa6814 (
talk) 23:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
letâs debate in discord abt this Rahimdurrani581 ( talk) 10:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Maula Bakhsh Khan (Ali Khan) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maula Bakhsh Khan (Ali Khan) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.References at Operation Desert Hawk
Hi MrGreen1163. You added five references to Operation Desert Hawk, but two of them links to non-existent pages and say they were accessed in February.
- "Indo-Pakistani War of 1965." Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Indo-Pakistani-War-of-1965. Accessed 15 Feb. 2023.
- "Operation Grand Slam - 1965 War." Defence Journal, Dec. 2000, https://web.archive.org/web/20120415010504/http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/dec/grand-slam.htm. Accessed 15 Feb. 2023.
Would you let me know where you got these references from (for attribution), and would you quote a brief excerpt of what text they have supporting your claim? SilverLocust đŹ 13:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know that two of these citations no longer work. I will remove these and keep the other citations in place. Once I get home from my schooling I will update the result with accessible citations and add quotations to back my claim. Thank you.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 14:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The question is âwhere did you get these referencesâ.
Doug Weller
talk 21:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Online research after seeing the following excerpt from the Desert Hawk article in itself, "On 24 April, Pakistan launched "Operation Desert Hawk" a decisive thrust towards the Indian posts in the area deploying an infantry division and two armored regiments equipped with Patton tanks and field guns. The Pakistan Army captured four more posts and claimed the whole Kanjarkot stretch. With poor logistics and inferior military hardware, India had no other option than to retreat after offering decent resistance.", the term ceasefire negotiated by London is in clear reference to the Rann of Kutch conflict. Desert Hawk was only apart of the Rann of Kutch conflict as evident by other operations such as Operation Kabadi. I did some further research and then used claud for two other citations verifiable citations, which seem to not be accessible. It however seems there are no copyright issues with these two sources which is good. If you wish to learn more about Operation Desert Hawk, I recommend this. (By the way I use stuff like EasyBib to format citations for me since it is easier.)
https://phpisn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/collections/coll_india/documents/1965Chapter02.pdf
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 22:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- What is "claud"? That's where you got the two references in question, right?
Doug Weller
talk 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Claude is an AI assistant by Anthropoc that I thought was useful in gaining access to digital sources not easily accessible but still available on the internet, but apparently. Good news is that there was no copyright infringement in citing these two citations, as I had asked Claude for an excerpt to back the assessment (Operation Desert Hawk), however it seems the article is no longer viewable, as it was accessed in February. As per WP:C there was no copyright infringement which is good. I know that its best not to use Claude for citations but thankfully I don't use it for the majority of my citations anyways, its a tertiary option basically for me.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 13:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- My bad Doug I didn't link it properly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:C&redirect=no
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 14:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- @ MrGreen1163: Please go through all of your contributions and remove each fake citation you added, including any citation created by AI that you have not personally checked to verify that they are not fake. AI is not presently able to create genuine references. Thanks, SilverLocust đŹ 00:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- My bad Doug I didn't link it properly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:C&redirect=no
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 14:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Claude is an AI assistant by Anthropoc that I thought was useful in gaining access to digital sources not easily accessible but still available on the internet, but apparently. Good news is that there was no copyright infringement in citing these two citations, as I had asked Claude for an excerpt to back the assessment (Operation Desert Hawk), however it seems the article is no longer viewable, as it was accessed in February. As per WP:C there was no copyright infringement which is good. I know that its best not to use Claude for citations but thankfully I don't use it for the majority of my citations anyways, its a tertiary option basically for me.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 13:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- What is "claud"? That's where you got the two references in question, right?
Doug Weller
talk 08:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Online research after seeing the following excerpt from the Desert Hawk article in itself, "On 24 April, Pakistan launched "Operation Desert Hawk" a decisive thrust towards the Indian posts in the area deploying an infantry division and two armored regiments equipped with Patton tanks and field guns. The Pakistan Army captured four more posts and claimed the whole Kanjarkot stretch. With poor logistics and inferior military hardware, India had no other option than to retreat after offering decent resistance.", the term ceasefire negotiated by London is in clear reference to the Rann of Kutch conflict. Desert Hawk was only apart of the Rann of Kutch conflict as evident by other operations such as Operation Kabadi. I did some further research and then used claud for two other citations verifiable citations, which seem to not be accessible. It however seems there are no copyright issues with these two sources which is good. If you wish to learn more about Operation Desert Hawk, I recommend this. (By the way I use stuff like EasyBib to format citations for me since it is easier.)
https://phpisn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/collections/coll_india/documents/1965Chapter02.pdf
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 22:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The question is âwhere did you get these referencesâ.
Doug Weller
talk 21:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you please provide page numbers for the books which support the statement "Pakistani Victory"? Thanks! ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 17:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course! I'm not home at the moment but I will when I get home. Thanks!
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 18:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I've noticed you've also changed
Kurram incident to say "Pakistani Victory." May I ask why? Two of the sources are dead, with no archives, and the third one only states that Pakistan closed NATO's supply route. If you have access to the two dead sources, can you please link them here? Thanks.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 20:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there. The user who changed the U.S.-Pakistan skirmishes did not add any references or citations so I addressed the issue with them, and I reverted their edits, saying if they wanted to engage further to come to me directly instead of edit warring. The Kurram Incident is cited as a Pakistani victory and has for years due to the formal United States apology in the aftermath. I simply reverted the user's edits so if you need me to update the citations I can do so. But here's a link to the United States apology and the reopening of supply routes, hence why the Kurram Incident was cited as a Pakistani victory previously.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39529199
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 20:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- The Kurram Incident has, before September of this year, never been referred to as a Pakistani victory. An apology and reopening in no way means a victory. As a suggestion, would the following be fine:
- Result:
- Pakistan closes Nato supply route
- US apologizes for the incident
-
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 20:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thats a perfect result that you can add. Thank you.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done. If the sources don't explicitly say a Pakistani victory, would you be amenable to something similar on
PakistanâUnited States skirmishes?
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. As an editor my intention is not bias and we all make mistakes. I continue to improve by the day and I will take into note to not consider implications as a verified assessment. Thank you for your cooperation.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've decided to just outright remove the result in the infobox, since all of the apologies and border closures seem to be about individual skirmishes, and there doesn't seem to be a unified result for all the confrontations. If you disagree, just let me know. Thanks for your work!
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hillary Clinton actually issued a formal apology that is considered the end of the skirmishes on the Wikipedia page, which was July 4th, 2012. This apology is a formal apology referring to the overall skirmishes between the two nations. Here I'll show you.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/03/pakistan-dispute-nato-hillary-clinton
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ok, thanks, wasn't aware of that, I'll add it.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. It was great to resolve this with you, I hope we can work together again in the future. Happy editing!
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Same. Cheers! ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 21:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. It was great to resolve this with you, I hope we can work together again in the future. Happy editing!
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ok, thanks, wasn't aware of that, I'll add it.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hillary Clinton actually issued a formal apology that is considered the end of the skirmishes on the Wikipedia page, which was July 4th, 2012. This apology is a formal apology referring to the overall skirmishes between the two nations. Here I'll show you.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/03/pakistan-dispute-nato-hillary-clinton
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've decided to just outright remove the result in the infobox, since all of the apologies and border closures seem to be about individual skirmishes, and there doesn't seem to be a unified result for all the confrontations. If you disagree, just let me know. Thanks for your work!
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. As an editor my intention is not bias and we all make mistakes. I continue to improve by the day and I will take into note to not consider implications as a verified assessment. Thank you for your cooperation.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 21:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done. If the sources don't explicitly say a Pakistani victory, would you be amenable to something similar on
PakistanâUnited States skirmishes?
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- However make sure to refer to it as "NATO" MrGreen1163 ( talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thats a perfect result that you can add. Thank you.
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there. The user who changed the U.S.-Pakistan skirmishes did not add any references or citations so I addressed the issue with them, and I reverted their edits, saying if they wanted to engage further to come to me directly instead of edit warring. The Kurram Incident is cited as a Pakistani victory and has for years due to the formal United States apology in the aftermath. I simply reverted the user's edits so if you need me to update the citations I can do so. But here's a link to the United States apology and the reopening of supply routes, hence why the Kurram Incident was cited as a Pakistani victory previously.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39529199
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 20:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I've noticed you've also changed
Kurram incident to say "Pakistani Victory." May I ask why? Two of the sources are dead, with no archives, and the third one only states that Pakistan closed NATO's supply route. If you have access to the two dead sources, can you please link them here? Thanks.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 20:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Aman Kumar Goel (
Talk) 18:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. A user named Jab1998 was reverting edits done by an administrator I believe, citing a U.S. victory without any citations and claiming the destruction of two Pakistani checkpoints. I reverted his edits as he engaged in edit warring without any citations, claiming "multiple news sources.". He was also warned previously on his talk page for nationalistic bias. Thank you for letting me know. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to add that the user "Jab1998" also has a history of disruptive edits. He was blocked from editing for 24 hours for consistently making disruptive edits. It also appears that Jab1998 engaged in an argument with FierySunset over Jab1998's repeated nationalistic bias. In reference to the NATO Attack in Pakistan in 2011, Jab1998 claimed the destruction of two Pakistani checkpoints with zero citations and contradictory to the article. Thanks. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 19:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh it seems this is a reference to the gaming. This was an incident yesterday in which I apologized to two administrators, as I wasn't aware it was a rule violation. Action was taken, and we have made an agreement for me to have 500 substantive and productive edits and to wait three months to apply for ECP to continue to grow this encyclopedia. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 19:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
|
|
âThe WikiChevronsâ | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of your sterling work in creating the military history article Battle of Hussainiwala. Great work, which is appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 23:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much!
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 23:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just checking that you are aware of the existence of
MilHist and its facility to
independently assess articles. Personally I rarely create a new article, there are so many existing ones needing improvement. Eg, look at the thousands of South Asian military history articles
needing improvement.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 17:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you! MrGreen1163 ( talk) 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I am a member of the Wikipedia military history WikiProject but I wasn't aware of the South Asian Task Force, thank you for informing me! MrGreen1163 ( talk) 21:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just checking that you are aware of the existence of
MilHist and its facility to
independently assess articles. Personally I rarely create a new article, there are so many existing ones needing improvement. Eg, look at the thousands of South Asian military history articles
needing improvement.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 17:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contribution(s). However, as a
general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as
Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947â1948 are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are
not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
MBlaze Lightning (
talk) 17:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gajar ka halwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eid. 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) 06:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
ITN recognition for 2024 Iranian strikes in Pakistan
On 18 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2024 Iranian strikes in Pakistan, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, MrGreen1163. Thank you for your work on Maula Bakhsh Khan (Ali Khan). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
IMO an edge case regarding wp:notability; I'm marking it as reviewed.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 18:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, MrGreen1163. Thank you for your work on Jinnahbhai Poonja. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 22:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! MrGreen1163 ( talk) 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi brother I noticed you made a page deletion but for no reason please explain whatâs wrong with the page then we will discuss about it 2001:8003:3F18:1C00:F5F7:C528:9763:9738 ( talk) 02:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello there. I nominated 1961 Kunar River Incursion for deletion due to it failing WP:GNG and WP:HISTRS. Two of the sources in the article are blog sites in Urdu and Persian that aren't credible. The third source is a passing mention of this incident which makes no mention of an Afghan victory. If anything it hints at the opposite:
- "When the Pakistani government in 1961 decided to call his bluff and to carry out a raid deep into Afghanistanâs Kunar province with some tribal support, it appeared clear that Afghanistan was no match for Pakistan on the battlefield (Farhang 1988)."
MrGreen1163 (
talk) 16:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Give me your instagram or something letâs debate
Kosa6814 (
talk) 23:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- What is there to debate regarding the lack of credibility here, but if you wish to discuss this with me, my discord is mrgreen1163. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 00:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Give me your instagram or something letâs debate
Kosa6814 (
talk) 23:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
letâs debate in discord abt this Rahimdurrani581 ( talk) 10:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Maula Bakhsh Khan (Ali Khan) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maula Bakhsh Khan (Ali Khan) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.