PreserveOurHistory

Hi PreserveOurHistory! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The discussion "45,000 real figure. 93,000 exaggerated" did not arrive at a consensus regarding the 45,000 number. Sources almost all agree that the number of prisoners was somewhere in the 91,000 - 97,000 range. Sources disagree regarding how many of them were Pakistani regular army, navy, and air force. You're welcome to try to craft an RfC that sets out the various sources and seeks a consensus way of presenting the inconsistencies in the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I mean i wouldn't say almost all, since the documentary film I saw claimed 20,000 army and every source i see for 90's range is a new article or is dated decades after 1971. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The question won't be resolved on this page. I have no idea what documentary you saw, so can't comment on that. We should be using recent historical scholarship (typically sources published by academic presses in the past 20 years or so). If for some reason you want a more contemporaneous source, one of the oldest I've seen is: Burke, S. M. (1973). "The Postwar Diplomacy of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". Asian Survey. 13 (11): 1036–1049. doi:10.2307/2642858. JSTOR 2642858. Initially, the Simla Agreement was well received in both countries, but by the end of 1972 much of the optimism ... had evaporated. The change for the worse ... resulted from the continuing deadlock over the release of some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children, captured in East Pakistan (the few hundred prisoners captured by each side on the Western front were exchanged on December 1, 1972). --Worldbruce (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

i am just seeing one page on those links you said that doesnt say any number for the POWs. Another thing that caused by suspicions was how large the armies were, east pakistan at 90 thousand yet when a couple thousand soldiers die they surrender? I mean according to the pakistani generals they could've gone on after a month but it was something that raised by suspicion. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for butting in, the 93,000 figure for POWs is true, I have access. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Huh? Your English is so broken I can't understand what you mean. Worldbruce (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of space travellers by first flight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghan. 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) 09:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Afghan Embassy, Tokyo, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 07:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello PreserveOurHistory! Your additions to List of heads of state of Afghanistan have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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.

• 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. 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.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• 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 either 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.
• 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of presidents of Pakistan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sumanuil. 08:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to General Secretary of the Communist Party have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sumanuil. 05:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pashtun Rebellion in Pakistan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pashtun Rebellion in Pakistan 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.

USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Revolution of Dignity, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

but "Russia allegedly" doesnt need a source right? please be consistent with your logic PreserveOurHistory (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

what did I do wrong? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

This was harassment.

"

why do you want a source? Or are you unaware of this war? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 3:42 am, 2 October 2022, Sunday (28 days ago) (UTC+1)[reply]

why arent you adding it? Why do you insist on wasting my time for a source? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 8:41 am, 8 October 2022, Saturday (21 days ago) (UTC+1)[reply]

if you dont have a clue about this war why are you the one in charge of the article? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 8:42 am, 8 October 2022, Saturday (21 days ago) (UTC+1)[reply]

I really don't have to waste my time with your mental deficiency. Add the edit. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 9:03 am, Today (UTC+1)"

Doug Weller talk 14:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not that knowledgeable on Wikipedia, but isn't it the job of the person i was replying to, meant to be that he does edits? If we are not given the permission, and the people straight up ignore us then what the hell do i do? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ordinary editors do not have jobs, although Wikipedia:Administrators like myself do. Also, there is no deadline. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

No one is in charge of an article and if you think it’d ok to call someone mentally deficient then you don’t belong here. Which is where my “job” might come in. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Actually lets think about it, if someone has been given permission to edit an article, no one else has the permission, then the people who have permission are obliged to edit yes? The Other person was doing disruptive editing because they are ignoring a correction. Please tell me again if its okay to ignore edits! I'd like to hear more about your mindset! PreserveOurHistory (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I give up. In September User:Rsk6400 pointed you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources which clearly says "Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. ". See also WP:VERIFY. When User:Aaron Liu rightly asked for a source, as required, you harassed and insulted him. He couldn't add what you wanted added without a source and I think most editors would have ignored you. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

😹😹😹 This person "Tikka Khan" is featured in another article called "1971 Indo Pakistani war", but is not featured in the article "Bangladesh Liberation War", if anything he is meant to be in the Bangladesh war article and not in the 1971 indo-pak article. Simple correction. This person does not know who Tikka Khan is, so he doesnt know anything about the war. So why not bring people who are actually know at least something about the war? Like I said before, i'm not wasting my time proving something like its not an established fact. Leave it, if you people aren't willing to add this really minor change-request then its your choice. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh golly, I didn't know about this until now. In addition to the points Doug raised,
1. Not everyone automatically subscribes to topics after responding, so the user might not receive notifications for your messages. The {{ping}} template or the @ symbol might help you with that.
2. See WP:ER. It is not the responsibility of the responder to know the sources and the event of the article. It's the responsibility of the request maker to provide sources.
3. See the topic above. The permission is automatically given for editors with 500 edits, not people who applied and have a knowledge on the topic. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 12:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

You’ve refused to accept that you harassed and insulted an editor and that the request for a source was simple policy and not optional. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I presume that I also must provide evidence that Hitler is the Nazi Party head, if not you wont believe it! I learnt my lesson now. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tikka Khan did not cause an infamous global event or a world-scale war. He isn't nearly as well known/infamous as Hitler, and information about Khan is more likely to be challenged. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Bacha Khan and Daoud Khan.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, the Image is solely meant to be used in one Article, Pashtunistan although it was removed. It's added back now. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on File:Abdul Motaleb Malik.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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. Whpq (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

But isnt the Image itself the subject of commentary? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. In this case, the image is from a commercial photo newswire agency and fails to meet WP:NFCC#2. The person in the photo is the the subject of commentary, and not the photograph itself. -- Whpq (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, PreserveOurHistory. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Afghan Embassy, Tokyo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

What had the other editor "vandalized" on that page that you resorted to characterizing their edit as such? Your insouciant use of the expression to undo good faith edits is nothing short of scandalous, and you could in fact be sanctioned for such presumptuousness. You had been apprised of the DS being in effect in the topic domain only recently, and also thereupon subjected to a block for causing disruption, so pray tread carefully, and develop a predisposition to assume good faith. Lastly, discuss, not revert, when changes you make are contentious and likely to engender dispute. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

? You want me to change wording next time? Or should I stop restoring content others remove without an explanation? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, stop reverting, period. It is also disingenuous on your part to now say that you were "restoring content others remove without an explanation", when the page history clearly shows otherwise. Please desist from edit warring further on the page, and discuss the matter on the talk page. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

His explanation had nothing to do with removing the entire image gallery. Do either of us understand what he wrote? What does "last good version before photo bombing" even mean? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is PreserveOurHistory. Thank you. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply