User talk:Captain AmericanBurger1775

Welcome!

Hello, Captain AmericanBurger1775, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page The Clash did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Denis Savard during a shift change.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Denis Savard during a shift change.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Battle of Chamb, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 1947 Poonch rebellion, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Moved to Talk: Partition of India § Lead image

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Codenamewolf (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your recent edits because 1). You changed the longstanding directly relevant image to a politically charged one which didn't even mention people of all religions that got affected in the violence that followed. A map is the best representative image on this topic. 2). You insist to include a ridiculous rumour passed on from a wife of a journalist, when there is no proof if these statements are real and would need far better sourcing per WP:RS. Plus it's a wife of a journalist making sensational claims about what her husband told her years ago regarding what he supposedly heard in person from a famous personality. Additionally both those references are editorials published in (relatively less established) Indian/other oped sources which cannot be taken as RS per WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:THIRDPARTY Codenamewolf (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The long standing map is useless, it doesn't show any proper borders involving partition or provinces, or districts. It makes no sense to have a map as the main image when there's another, more accurate, map right underneath it. The main image I chose, does not need to represent all of partition, it is showcasing the bulk of immigration, politics and violence of the event, which occurred in the Punjab region. Even so, your map is a map outdated by almost half a century and fails to showcase any of the widespread district changes between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs during the 46 years after the map was made.

If you feel that my main image doesn't represent everything, feel free to add a collage of other images- that would make more sense in trying to represent one of the most diverse and complex human migrations in history. Regardless, all you've done is reverted relevant photos that help readers understand the characteristics of partition.

Having an outdated 1901 map shows nothing about partition. That's like me having a map of 1789 Europe for the main image of the WW2 article. It's plain idiotic and does not help the reader gain any idea of what partition was about.

Finally, the detail about Jinnah was stated and recorded by one of Pakistan's most revered and iconic journalists. I already stated in the partition article that it was an allegation stated by an extremely credible person and several proper sources (a lot of the article is just varying views from opposing factions of partition). There is no need to remove such an important detail that highlights the reactions to such a devastating event, and helps the reader understand the scale of partition.

All your edits has simply retracted key information and made the article worse. My edits have added more information and relevancy that helps the reader understand such a complex event. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Codenamewolf (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:SHOCKVALUE. Additionally, a map of pre partition India and it's prevailing religions is the best the representative on this topic because there is a lot more to the Partition of India than just communal violence in the aftermath that followed as evidenced by the article body (that image also fails WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE as it leaves out violence against Muslims during partition entirely), and should rather go to a relevant section that discusses this per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE.

Alternatively if you think this map is not representative of this topic then it is best to remove images from the lead entirely. Read this at MOS:LEADIMAGE. Codenamewolf (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, how great a certain journalist might be is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a gossip site. A rumour passed on from the WIFE of a dead journalist is not WP:RS. You can take this to WP:RSN or try other forms of dispute resolution, any further edit warring without consensus might get you blocked. Codenamewolf (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pre partition is inaccurate and doesn't account for the partition of Bengal and other regions. It's not just a Pre-Partition map, it's simply a completely outdated map that doesn't showcase the situation just before and during 1947. If you really want a map, there are far better ones that show partition. Your current map is already represented right underneath it by 4 other maps. It's overkill with the maps.

I suggest having a collage of images, similar to the article of the Bangladesh Liberation War article. I agree that one image of the riots doesn't represent all of partition, several images though (like the Liberation War article, which is less grand) would accurately help readers get a better visual idea of partition- more than that a image of a destroyed village or an extremely outdated map.

Lastly, the quality of a journalist indicates the credibility of his/her work. Once again, many wiki pages don't have concrete facts, alot of it is just allegations. Mazhar Ali Khan was a famous journalist in Pakistan herself, though you have seen to want to delete her wiki page. Her claim is less of a rumour, and more of a historical allegation that has been mentioned in several sources. This allegation is more credible once you consider how desperate Jinnah was to end the violence when it was against the Muslims. He wrote to the government in the UK and attempted to appeal to the public in hopes of ending the violence against the Muslims he represented. Him witnessing the violence and questioning his actions is 100% plausible and makes Khan's allegation even more credible. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does. The green "Muslim" color map extends to present day's Bangladesh in that map as well. The other map visualises the princely states and British India. Both maps serve their own purpose. I'm not here to debate on map choices though. Codenamewolf (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And these are war pages which I think have different criteria entirely for infobox entries. And no war page can be as complex and eventful as the Partition of India. Also, that Bangladesh Liberation War page example turns completely irrelevant when you review it's twin article Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. Just one unrepresentative image. Like I said before, no lead image at all/or simple maps are better than cluttering the lead with collages and cherry picked images.

Further, please see WP:NOTSCANDAL regarding rumours and why they are considered unreliable. And also, WP:ONUS Codenamewolf (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have no idea what you're talking. I assume you're a Westerner attempting to understand partition. As already stated, the 1901 map is clearly outdated, and doesn't show any idea about the situation of Partition. Even the purpose of the map is outdated. The Hindu/Muslim districts changed tons of times due to smaller partitions as I've talked about, and the succession of different monarchs in princely states. I already found a better map of partition that I linked in my last message, and that map is far better.

Bangladesh Liberation War covers the actions of the Independence movement and a year long insurgency before India arrived. The Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 covers mostly the 2 weeks of war between India and Pakistan. You can't read the Indo-Pak 1971 article and fully understand the Bangladesh Liberation War.

The Bangladesh Liberation War article has a collage of images cause its far more complex and more grand than the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. As such, it makes only the most sense to have a collage of images for the infobox of the partition article. The infobox will include a relevant map, and images representing both sides of partition.

Keeping your outdated map is not an option. I've presented a proper consensus and middle ground solution, and I'm following through with that regardless if an uneducated person on partition like you whines.

Further, please see WP:STFU Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on this talk page before, there is no consensus for single images or collages with cherry picked poor quality images. So I've reverted you recent edits again.

Lastly, you might want to read WP:CIVIL as your last comment was very battleground and unprofessional. That's not you communicate with others on an encyclopedia. Codenamewolf (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder WP:ONUS is a Wikipedia policy, which has not yet been met. Codenamewolf (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't respond to me, so I assumed a consensus was reached. The images were mostly good quality, and nothing was "cherry picked". You obviously seem to have an agenda that is destroying the neutrality of the article. Your 1901 map wasn't even considered for the religious guidelines for partition, despite what the caption claims. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said the image should be removed as per mos:lead if this is going to lead to back and forth edits wars, I won't be opposed to that, though other page watchers might. And those collages looked cherry picked and very unencyclopedic/flimsy. Codenamewolf (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a map, use the 1941 map which partition was formed off of. It's difficult to find unlicensed images, and the ones I used were of good quality, and were definitely neutral. One photo was a map, another was the 3 leaders of partition, another was Muslim refugees, and the last was destroyed homes of Hindus/Sikhs. It's a perfect balance. You should make a better collage. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ive already told you twice that removing the map/no image at all is the logical solution, yet you repeat the same thing over and over and edit war with misleading edit summaries. Codenamewolf (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having no lead image for such a major article is a joke of a solution. I have no problem with a map, but use the proper map that partition was based off of. I already stated the reasons for why the 1901 map is outdated and useless. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Codenamewolf (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring, or I'll have to report you. There is no consensus for any change. Codenamewolf (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2024 (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.

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.

--Codenamewolf (comment) 19:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Alert

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 20:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "uneducated" and "shut the fuck up"

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. City of Silver 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI can be closed if you promise to stop warring

Hello Captain AmericanBurger1775. There is an open complaint about you at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Disruptive User. This complaint might be closed without any admin action if you will promise to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promise Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]