Winged Blades of Godric

Recent edits to Kharif crop

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! — Keithbob • Talk • 04:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar

Please note that articles have to be written in comprehensible English. It is entirely unclear what you are trying to say in this edit, [1] and in consequence it has to be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk)

October 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Milky Way without thoroughly 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: I restored the removed content. 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! Materialscientist (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

April 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Lipoprotein has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Lipoprotein was changed by ARUNEEK (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2015-04-13T14:09:36+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop putting "fixed typo" in your edit summaries.

"A typographical error (often shortened to typo) is a mistake made in the typing process (such as a spelling mistake) of printed material." That's rarely what you are doing. Vandals however often claim to be fixing typos when they are doing anything but. You need to add a handwritten edit summary explaining your edit. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

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

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

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

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

Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 10:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2016 Uri attack, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to add reliable sources for any new content. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Iridescent. 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. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2016 Uri attack, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sons and daughters of Manila

Hi, you have reviewed the page, but there is also a speedy deletion nomination. Please give me more information. Thanks.--Buchbibliothek (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing List of sons and daughters of Manila, ARUNEEK.

Unfortunately NearEMPTiness has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The content of List of sons and daughters of Manila should be manually copied and pasted into List of people from Manila. Then List of sons and daughters of Manila should be deleted, please.

To reply, leave a comment on NearEMPTiness's talk page.

October 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2016 Uri attack, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sir with utmost respect,I can't find out about any edit you reverted recently!!!!???Can you be more particular????And you can be more than sure, I know what a constructive edit is!!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That "The claim of surgical strikes was false says Pakistan and probably an effort to improve image of Mr. Narendra Moodi in domestic politics." violates the policy of Wikipedia:No_original_research and is also presented in a bad manner and style.Also the replacement of the heading of the section-"Military conflict" was uncalled for!!!.

Further,probably only MalikAttaRasool knows ,from where he found out that the most of the protesters killed were-Anti Indians.For your kind information,a chunk of the people who died were not even involved in the protests!!!

That Burhan Wani is not a student leader (as proposed by MalikAttaRasool) but rather a militant is deemed from here,which clearly specifies his allegiance to Hizbul Mujahideen-a well designated terrorist organisation!!!!

Also,the attack by the terrorists on the base is obviously an ambush, not a raid!!!.

I am also similarly unsure about his motives of addition of a reference to a line which has got nothing to do with it(except voicing the Pakistani claims)!!!!

Overall, the edit sorrily speaks of ethnocentric attitude!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not dispute the tendency towards ethnocentric bias in contentious articles such as this; I just think that your attempts to remove any criticism of India from the article has a similar effect. You told Iridescent below that some of your edits were made in haste- perhaps, in view of the discretionary sanctions that cover the topic, this is a case of 'Less haste, less speed' as it were...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have enough time to ponder over this edit!!!And you are free to revert my edits iff you can counter my points as stated above!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, my only bias was towards the strong term-"Anti Indians".Barring this,I could not but help the rest of the reversions.They are facts,as you can evidently checkAru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither am I aware what was the conversation and the related diffs nor am I interested in learning about them. What I wanted to clear is people killed in 2016 Kashmir unrest were mostly protesters, though some were innocent (this no. being extremely low though) as it happens in every protest/war. Some innocent generally dies! I don't know what was the conflict about and who reverted whom so treat this just as a bot leaves a comment like an FYI! I hope this sorts out the matter between you both! VarunFEB2003 14:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@VarunFEB2003: Thank you for that, although you clearly demonstrate the very myopia under discussion. As we can see. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I ain't near-sighted! All is that I find it highly eye-watering to read a conversation with full of exclamations, bolding, huge signatures and @ signs! That is the reason! VarunFEB2003 14:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@VarunFEB2003:Thanks for your intervention!!!None of us reverted the other one's edits.It was regarding the sudden dissemination of a warning!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:I think the matter is settled.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard

“Probably only MalikAttaRasool knows, from where he found out that the most of the protesters killed were-Anti Indians” Government in Kashmir.

Dear I have no doubt about it who is being blinded with pellet guns and who all are dying in Kashmir.. However, for the sake of reference I tell you that I learnt it from BBC.. Here is the link http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37504308 Malik Atta 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Secondly you have said

“The attack by the terrorists on the base is obviously an ambush, not a raid!!!.”

Dear attack on stationary target is not ambush, it is called a raid. An ambush is conducted on moving targets. I had corrected wrong usage of military term. Please check up the difference between Ambush and Raid. I am sure you will not undo every edit which is made by someone who does not go with your line of thinking. Please avoid making Wikipedia the propaganda tool of a specific country.Malik Atta 07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC) —  (talk • contribs) Malik Atta 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@MalikAttaRasool:For your kind information,I think you believe Oxford Dictionary to be a very good source of information about English words!!!The definition of ambush reads as follows-A surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.Also, day to day use of the language informs us that Ambush is reserved generally for terrorist attacks etc. while Raid is reserved for the same actions done by any police force!!No doubt the term ambush is generally used in military terminology for moving targets,but until and unless we find a better word ,I would prefer the term ambush over raid!I have never saw a Reputed Source describing a terrorist attack as a raid!Hope you latch to my point!I understand you reversion in the case of ANTI-INDIANS now!You may reincorporate that!With thanksAru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 07:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

My dear ARUNEEK “A surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position” True. This is good definition. “People [who attack] lying in a wait” in concealed position and definitely waiting for their target. That is the precisely my point. So in case of Uri attack, Kashmiri freedom fighters, militants or terrorists; you may call them with any name went to Indian army base at Uri and attacked it. They did not keep waiting for it. Hence, it is not an ambush but a raid. The word ‘raid’ is not reserved for only police force etc. but its use is common. For example McCormack, Timothy LH. The Israeli Raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor.. The Story of the Japanese Raid on Broome, The Doolittle raid: America's daring first strike against Japan and Why do elephants raid crops in Sumatra. Thank you for reading. I believe we can together make Wikipedia better forum for our young ones apart from traditional rivalry and Indo-Pak on going politicsMalik Atta 09:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Starting AFDs on pages already tagged for deletion

Please don't nominate articles which are already tagged for speedy deletion (or proposed deletion) for AFD—as you've just done with People intelligence—unless you feel the CSD/PROD is inappropriate and it needs a full discussion (in which case, remove the existing template, replace it with the AFD template, and explain in the AFD nomination why you feel it necessary to send the page for a full discussion). Otherwise, you're either wasting the time of anyone who reads the AFD nomination for a page which has already been deleted, or you waste the time of the deleting admin who will need to close the AFD discussion as well, thus negating the point of speedy deletion. In this particular case, as nobody else had commented on the AFD discussion you started I've deleted the discussion and removed it from the log, since there was no way this page wasn't appropriate for speedy deletion, and there's no point leaving a closed "discussion" involving only one editor cluttering AFD.

As you no doubt know given the number of warnings you've received, you're currently making a lot of mistakes. We welcome new editors, and we certainly appreciate your enthusiasm, but if you're going to involve yourself in technical areas I'd respectfully ask that you familiarise yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines. You can generally find these by typing "WP:" into the searchbar, followed by the topic in which you're interested—e.g., WP:DELETION will take you to information on our deletion process, WP:IMAGES to our instructions for the use of images, and so on. ‑ Iridescent 08:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that was a good-faith mistake made by me!!! I probably re-tagged the page for deletion while it was nominated for speedy deletion, which led to the problem!!!Sorry!!!

But I think you should also take a fair look at my positive contributions too!!! You can't override them for some technical mistakes that I have committed unknowingly in haste.

Anyway,Thanks for you clue to easy searching of the internal policies.Cheerio!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disregarding your positive edits—if I were, you'd have been blocked by now for disruption—but "makes good edits" doesn't give you a free pass to cause disruption elsewhere. FIM gives you good advice above regarding acting in haste; one considered edit is a lot more use to Wikipedia than ten rushed ones. (As an aside, would you consider toning down your use of exclamation marks and superfluous bolding? Wikipedia is an academic reference work, not Twitter.) ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah.Your advice is worthy enough to be followed!!!(Will try to put aside the style!)(I don't use Twitter!!)Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 13:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Try using a single exclamation when needed looks much much better! VarunFEB2003 14:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@ARUNEEK: Please stop making nominations for deletion. CSD etc, until you can show that you won't make any more 'honest mistakes' as you did (again) here. Many thanks. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify about my mistake,please?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Willingly.

It was created at 14:57. CSD nominated here by another editor. You nominate it for AfD here which you undo here.You then CSD it again (for a wrong reason, incidentally). This is exactly what Iridescent warned about above: everyone's time is being wasted because we now have an article tagged for CSD, and your AfD here, thus duplicating the work to be done. You either do not know or cannot decide what to do, which is why I suggested above that you leave such matters alone. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:Sorry,I did not discover the difference between WP:CSD and WP:AFD till now.I thought that both of them serve spproximately the same purpose. A tender apology,for the hassles which resulted from my 2 mistaken-edits. Will ensure my best to prevent it from causing the same mistake any further,now that I am well versed with the details of the 2 policies!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Doomscrewed. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)