Khan79797979

Khan79797979, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Khan79797979! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello, I'm Adamgerber80. I noticed that you recently removed content from Babur (cruise missile) 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. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 21:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ababeel (missile) 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 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DBigXrayᗙ 21:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Indus Valley Civilisation, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

February 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 Jaish-e-Mohammed 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) 18:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't make wrong changes which describes Pakistan have no roll in this attack. If you are a Pakistani slit, you need to do flush your mind first. Do not make any changes without any right confirmation. Vinayak9192 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content

Hey there. When you remove so much well sourced content like you did at Jaish-e-Mohammed without giving a good reason, the edits can easily look unconstructive to us other editors. If you feel there are some factual discrepancies in the article, it would be better to give a reliable source or discuss the issue further on the articles talk page. Thank you. – Þjarkur (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Khan79797979. 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 {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — Newslinger talk 09:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Ababeel (missile), you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are clearly the one engaging in an edit war. I have specifically provided credible sources from accredited organizations/individuals for my claim. I can continue to add more if you require. There is ample amount of evidence for Pakistan's missile verification. Your sources are biased and frankly, not credible. As for Edit Wars, that is what you engaging in, I have no interest in pushing a narrative, I am simply contributing up-to-date knowledge.

When was this flight demonstrated?

As has been explained on the article talk: page many times, there has been no demonstration flight of MIRV technology. There has been one flight (Jan 2017), demonstrating the launcher, but not the re-entry of the RVs. This is not a demonstration of MIRV, even if the US speaker you cite implied that it was. The US military are also not entirely trustworthy on such matters and have often over-emphasised external "threats". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about.. "when was it demonstrated?" Every single technological stage required for MIRV has been proven and acknowledged by independent sources, yet we are discussing whether or not it was demonstrated? The fact that you have to mention it proves you are spewing non-factual rhetoric echoed by biased parties who are interested in delegitimizing and pushing a narrative.

Secondly, I am just supposed to take your word on whether or not the US is credible or not? Considering I quoted literally the subsection of the US intelligence that deals with Missiles threats yearly. If you are interested I can post an academic research article by an MIT professor who takes into account the Pakistani MIRV ability against a hostile nation. Point is, the MIRV capability is widely accepted to exist in Pakistan. The same argument is made for China & India as well. They haven't demonstrated re-entry MIRV through a video yet it is widely assumed they have the capability, yet no hint of doubt remains with allegations of "independent observers"

I will be changing the pages back because it is factually incorrect. Secondly, as a solution, we can delete the entire passage of "independent observers" or keep continuing in back forth revisions.

Thanks.

I ask again, "when was it demonstrated?" It's a simple enough question. Can you answer it? If not, then per WP:BURDEN, your unsupported claim here has to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to come off as standoffish but I believe I answered it.

No, you have still not answered it. "When was it demonstrated?" It was not demonstrated by the Jan 2017 test, as that did not demonstrate any re-entry vehicles, let alone MIRV. I am unaware of any subsequent test which might have done so. So the claim is still unproven and needs to go, per WP:BURDEN.

The US military cite is either inaccurate in itself or (more charitably) is being frequently misinterpreted. But it refers to the Jan 2017 test, and that test just didn't demonstrate any re-entries.

It does not matter if this capability is "widely accepted in Pakistan" – we need a reliably sourced demonstration of it.

Please remove this unsupported claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have come here because Andy Dingley flagged on the Aviation WikiProject talk page that he was having trouble with this article. I am just an ordinary user, nobody special, but I have some experience. First, I must say that Andy is too experienced an editor to get trapped in an edit war or to act in bad faith. When I look at the page history I see that he flagged up the problem before his edits got out of hand. The same cannot be said of you, Khan79797979, as your continued posting of the same material appears to violate the three-revert rule. If an unfriendly Admin came that way, they could take sanctions against you for that alone. I can also assure you that Andy is not a biased editor and it is essential that you obey Wikipedia policy in this by assuming good faith on his part and making no personal attacks on him in future, as you have already done here. May I most strongly recommend to you that you talk your issues through with Andy (and others such as myself if need be) to reach a common understanding.

The burden of proof on Wikipedia always lies with the editor who would add information, see WP:VERIFY. If information cannot be verified, it is likely to be removed. As I understand it, Andy quite correctly wants the claim of US endorsement to be either verified directly or removed. Are you able to quote a passage from the source you have referenced, in order to answer the specific questions that Andy has raised? If you can do this, then I am sure that we would both be happy for your edit to be restored. But if the source does not directly answer his questions, and not alternative source can be found, then Andy is quite right that your edit cannot be sustained. I hope this helps to bring some balance to this conversation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A clarification of things.

I haven't made a single personal attack, I actually conveyed a reassurance to not make the tone of my rebuttal sound hostile whereas Andy sounds quite condescending in his rebuttal--to which I don't take to offense because I believe the technical aspect of MIRV technology is misunderstood or maybe Andy is not properly educated on it. Which is why there is a situation leading into a disruptive edit-war by Andy, to which I have no intention of pursuing.

The premise to my claim, which I provided evidence, is that the final product of MIRV doesn't need to be demonstrated with a video or "physical" demonstration. If you pass and demonstrate overcoming the step by step technological hurdles, it is accepted that MIRV has been achieved. Hence, this is why it is a little complicated to show a "simple demonstration" evidence as asked earlier. This similar process of achieving and verifying MIRV was also the case for Soviets in 1973 and I would confidently assume the same for other capable nations.

Secondly, As for the sources to my claim. Here is the exact quote regarding the 2017 Missile test. "In January 2017, Pakistan conducted the first test launch of its nuclear-capable Ababeel ballistic missile, demonstrating South Asia’s first MIRV payload, and in early July, Pakistan demonstrated an expanded-range Nasr CRBM."

By the Defence Intelligence of US. In their annual worldwide threat assessment of 2018. 

Here is the quote regarding the technological steps to which Pakistans missile MIRV Ababeel achieved.

"Pakistan has, nonetheless, demonstrated other important MIRV-related technologies in the past. These notably include the capability to field small, liquid-fueled retrograde stabilizing rockets for a post-separation attitude control system (PSAC)." --CSIS Missile Defence Project.

Albeit it is important to admit, that there are certain aspects that Pakistan has not demonstrated but as precedence not, many other MIRV tests have not included every single detail either. So, I also took the 2017 test with a grain of salt.

Until, China admitted to selling Pakistan specific re-entry technology in order to clear a specific vehicle re-entry hurdle regarding optical imagery for improving missile accuracy for re-entry.. It is reported China has been helping Pakistan clear technological hurdles for MIRV since 2010 as BBC reported.

Lastly, to be very candid, I find it quite absurd that I have to now find evidence to prove the US claims. I don't understand how that makes any sense at all. What interest does the US have for lying? or what makes the US assessment not credible? No offense but what credentials do Wikipedia editors have that allow it to doubt a neutral assessment from an accredited organization. I have provided as much evidence as I can from various source, for my claims but I believe the 2nd person who joined this conversation is a friend or very familiar with Andy and came in with a Biased set of assumptions favoring Andy's positioning without even going back on the edit history and seeing the numerous amount of evidence I have shown to back my claim.

And I would ask Andy here to disprove single evidence that disproves Ababeels MIRV missile capability rather than "doubts" over its viability as a MIRV'd missile or the fact that it doesn't have a video showing MIRV.

Thanks.

PS. I still am open to completely erasing any mention of "independent demonstration" from the text, in order to reach a common understanding.

Thank you for your considered and full reply. I have restored the main point of your edit that I had reverted, but have made some changes to meet our content guidelines. I hope my changes are acceptable to you.

It is a strange thing about Wikipedia that we do not seek absolute truth, but to repeat information given in reliable sources. Nationalist government and news announcements around the world often cannot be trusted, so we seek sources which are also independent third parties. In the case of Pakistan, US sources are usually independent, but I think there may have been some confusion between editors here as to which of them may be considered reliable. The US intelligence community can be, so thank you especially for providing that link, which I have referenced in the article. By the way, since the source is described in the citation, there is no need to mention it in the main article text.

I suspect that neither Andy Dingley nor I had realised that it was one of your sources until just now. For your information, he and I are both members of the Aviation WikiProject and we bump into each other's edits or discussions every so often. Sometimes we agree with each other, sometimes we do not.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.