User talk:Pax98

September 2024

Hello, I'm Arjayay. I noticed that you recently removed content from Battle of Ichogil Bund 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 your 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. - Arjayay (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Battle of Ichogil Bund, 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. - Arjayay (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About 1965

Hello why are u keeping changing my edits Muhammad Ahsan2233 (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits make no sense, that's why. Pax98 (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, do name just one major weapon platform of US origin that was operation in the Indian Armed forces - just ONE!! From its rifles and GPMGs to the tanks and artillery systems - every damn thing was of European origin!!

And as for neutrality of the source materials, that BBC article is far more credible a source than those CIA fanfictions of yours. Their figures make absolutely ZERO sense!! Like how the hell did the reach the figure of 300 tanks lost for India when Pakistan do not even hold more than 40 captured wrecks??!! They basically just parroted the official Pakistani Army accounts without any due diligence. Pax98 (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ahsan2233 (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Muhammad Ahsan2233 (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro no need to be offended. You can clearly see that BBC article is written by an indian from Delhi and only giving perspective of india and giving references that is given by indian defence ministry and u are still saying that is not biased come on brah.

Sherman tanks(used by Indian) were also American tanks, read that article (CIA article) again that is not biased. Muhammad Ahsan2233 (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended, merely frustrated at you keep changing the wiki entry based on an entirely biased and more importantly, a completely baseless report of the CIA!! And I'm not the only one who's reverted your edits either!! There are other, more senior members who have also shared their skepticism about your source.

And as for those M4 Shermans, those were hand-me-downs from the British Army and the Americans had absolutely nothing to do with them; nor were the Indians reliant on them for spare/ ammo support.

"read that article (CIA article) again that is not biased. "

-

🤣🤣 Do not make me laugh, kiddo!! Your CIA masters have claimed in their report that India had started the war with over 1500 tanks when in reality, they barely had half of that, LMAO!!

And why are you dodging my earlier question to you?? Here, I'll ask once you again - how did they get to that figure of 300 tank losses on the Indian side?? What evidence did they base their claim upon?? Unless and until you can answer these questions, you will convince no one, rest assured. Pax98 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro u are saying that Pakistan captured only 40 tanks and that's Indian claims 😂, actual number is higher than that.

After that u saying how India lost that much tanks, so in just battle of Chawinda India lost more than 100 tanks according to neutral claims and according to Pakistan that number is near 180 tanks💀.

There's only one more editor who revert my edit and u know what is funny thing he's Indian too🤣. Muhammad Ahsan2233 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bro u are saying that Pakistan captured only 40 tanks and that's Indian claims 😂, actual number is higher than that."

-

😂😂 Where is your evidence?? Line up those hundreds of captured Indian tanks and snap some panoramic shots, why don't you?? Better yet, use a fucking drone, beg to your Chinese friends if you don't have one.

"After that u saying how India lost that much tanks, so in just battle of Chawinda India lost more than 100 tanks according to neutral claims and according to Pakistan that number is near 180 tanks💀."

-

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Spoken like a true madrassachhap that you are. Why stop at 180?? Make it 18000 while you are at it, LMAO!!

Kidding aside, in actuality, it was outright impossible for the Indian Army to lose that many tanks in that battle because less than 4 regiments of tanks participated in that battle from our side - one M4 Sherman and 3 Centurions. So, unless you are unironically claiming that India lost the entire contingent, that is absolutely impossible. Long story short, your officers were the very same lying sacks of shit that they are now, no other ways to put it.

"There's only one more editor who revert my edit and u know what is funny thing he's Indian too🤣"

-

Learn to count, kid; that's all I'm gonna say. Pax98 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GOber bakht making there won happiness 🤣, what you want I should to put godi media refrences in neutral claims.

Lol, battle of Chawinda is the biggest battle in 1965 war. Where whole corps of India involved in this battle.

Secondly, Pakistan has shown their captured tanks many times, if your godi media doesn't show it to you, it's not my fault 🧏🤫 Muhammad Ahsan2233 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Secondly, Pakistan has shown their captured tanks many times, if your godi media doesn't show it to you, it's not my fault"

-

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

First of all, I'm NOT even a hindu, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!! And secondly, just listen to yourself speak you ^{lulla-hu-snackbar} chanting pedo groomer, LMAO!! There is literally nothing on the internet that would even come close to proving your fairytales. When I search google for CAPTURED INDIAN TANKS IN PAKISTAN, the only thing that comes up are those couple of Centurions parked outside your war museum!!

"Lol, battle of Chawinda is the biggest battle in 1965 war. Where whole corps of India involved in this battle."

-

🤣🤣🤣🤣 That Corps (I Corps) had just a single understrength armored division with 4 tank regiments (3 Centurions - 4th Horse, 17th Puna Horse and 16th Cav; and 1 Sherman reg. as in the 62nd Cav) in its orbat, LMAO!! And you guys got buttfucked by this ramshackle bunch of rust buckets so hard that you had to invent this whole story about this grand victory at Chawinda just to save yourself the embarrassment!! Pax98 (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second thing can we talk on any social media platforms(insta,tele) so we can exchange our ideas and reach the conclusion quickly. Like here is process is so slow and we can't even can give our reference, historic pic or proof as easily. Muhammad Ahsan2233 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really active on any social media but I do have a discord account. Pax98 (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ahsan04708) is my discord id text me there or send me ur one. Muhammad Ahsan2233 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pax98, please be more civil when talking to your fellow editors, even ones that are socks. Be respectful, especially when you disagree. Do not malign them or personally attack them. While your information might be correct, your behavior here doesn't reflect well on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Pax98 (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. 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. --

Foxmaster0987 (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that its that other dude who the members are having all the disagreements with?? Just take a glance at the edit history. So, instead of trying to warn and restrain me, maybe you should try and put a leash on that muhammad fella or whatever the hell his name is. Pax98 (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Heyo, I've noticed that you've recently been on a bit of an editing spree in a few articles about various Indian conflicts. The Battle of Burki page specifically is what brought me to your talk page because I've had it on my watchlist due to the recent vandalism that's been going on there, and while all constructive edit are welcome, I couldn't help but notice that you do quite a few self reverts. I highly recommend you do test edits in your sandbox instead of on the article itself, just to reduce edit summary spam and also so that your changes are easier to backtrack through. Helps keep things cleaner for anti-vandals and other users, y'know? That's all I have to say, have a good day/night! Sirocco745 (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was entirely on me and I'll take the due diligence from here on out. It's just that I'm really new to editing and therefore, didn't really know my way around stuff. Again, apologies for the inconvenience. Pax98 (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, just make sure you keep everything factual, NPOV, and all that kinda stuff. I can't help but comment on this, but maybe jumping right into the deep end of editing military articles wasn't the best starting point. I recommend you read up on a few more policies and flick through the Manual of Style a bit as well. The better you understand what Wikipedia wants from you, the better you can make your edits.

Also, you might want to read up on a few essays about how we interact with fellow editors on here. Yes, even the trolls or the people we think are in the wrong. Yes, I'm referring to the conversation at About 1965. WP:CIVIL is your best starting point. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Pax98 (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, I highly recommend that you step away from the military articles and see what else you can edit. You jumped straight into editing them and it's not going the way you'd expected or hoped. It's clear that you feel very strongly about your country and their military, which isn't a bad thing in of itself. However, your passion is clouding your ability to think clearly and respond calmly to unhelpful edits. If you still want to edit articles related to India, then my recommendation would be to try and clean up some of the English on non-mainstream articles. That's how I started out, just doing copyedits on whatever Wikipedia recommended me.

If you're wondering why I'm even bothering with typing these messages out at 9pm, it's because I don't want to believe I'm talking to a brick wall. I reckon you can do quite a bit of good on here, but you're still quite new to this. I've looked through your past contributions, you've gotten into a bit of trouble with unconstructive edits in the past. I can see you're making an effort to not repeat those mistakes, and I want to help you do better.

If you have anything you want help with, literally anything, leave a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Just... don't be a dick to others, alright? Sirocco745 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I mentioned you on the Battle of Burki talk page. Please read it, take it seriously, and respond. Consider it a first step towards getting better at editing. This way, there's a conversation between the involved groups that will (ideally) produce sources and reasoning for both sides pretty quickly. And if it doesn't, that's what the neutral third party will be for. If you disagree with the outcome, can you please disagree politely? Sirocco745 (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not talking to a brick wall, kindly rest assured. As I said before, I recognize my stupidity and there won't be a repeat. Regards. Pax98 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear it! Sirocco745 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]