User talk:Abecedare#New user removing sourced content

Hi, this is regarding the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaddis&action=history&offset=&limit=250 Gaddi] community article. I trimmed large chunks of unsourced and unreliably sourced content added by these IPs - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.184.206.209] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.184.211.1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.184.211.44] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.184.207.110] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.184.210.225] from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaddis&action=history&offset=&limit=250 March to May 2025], till they (presumably) created an ID [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sahil_Sharma_hp_45]. I saw you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaddis&oldid=1234652853 here], hence this section. Please have a look. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Fylindfotberserk}} ECPed the article and blocked the two accounts. I wouldn't be surprised if the accounts are linked to the IPs, TSS or another sock master but I didn't bother pulling on that thread since their tandem actions alone were block worthy. Can you please review if any of their edits to other articles need to be reverted (they won't be WP:BANREVERT eligible but can be reverted on merit)? Also let me know if any of those article need ECP protection too. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'll go through them article and let you know. Thanks for the swift action {{p}}. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharmour&action=history This] one has similar problems. I've started trimming it. Another one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chamba_State&action=history] has been taken care of by User:Speederzzz it seems. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{reply|Fylindfotberserk}} Thanks for checking. Have watchlisted but not protected those two articles since there doesn't appear to be as much disruption apart from that due to the recent pair. But please keep an eye out too in case that editor returns and I miss spotting it on my watchlist. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Trimmed / Re-written [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharmour&action=history this]. Have watchlisted. I'll notify if there is disruption. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, my Request for Move of Kripalu Maharaj to Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj, which you had removed, was posted as technical since I believe it will enhance the quality of the article. I am open to your guidance on how to navigate this change. If there's a specific method to advertise this RM (I see it has been since removed), or if I should use WP:RM#CM, I will be happy to follow your lead.Saksham (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Saksham}} This would certainly be a "controversial move" since the proposal has been discussed and rejected earlier, and there have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=move&user=&page=Kripalu+Maharaj&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist nine undiscussed moves] that have been reversed and caused the page to be move protected. So, as I said at the article talkpage, a move discussion would be needed. see WP:RSPM for the process of starting one. Because of a history of COI editing and meat puppetry at the article, it would be good to advertise the request at relevant noticeboards; I can help with that.

:Finally, from your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1290685521 previous request] I see that you are already aware of the guideline to use honorifics only if {{tq|the subject is not known except with titles or other honorifics}}. In your request please make sure to present evidence for that because a quick search suggests to me that that is not the case, eg, [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/krishnas-playground-9780190123987?cc=us&lang=en& this OUP book], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/De_eroticizing_Assault/1BrmXGob9MkC? this book] co-authored by Kalpana Kannabiran, and plenty of news articles in [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Ashram-management-found-guilty-in-Pratapgarh-stampede/article16529925.ece The Hindu], [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world/asia/05india.html The New York Times], [https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/hathras-tragedy-know-why-religious-events-in-india-are-prone-to-stampedes The Free Press Journal] etc, all use the plainer title "Kripalu Maharaj". But the detailed evidence can be examined as part of the discussion, if your literature-search suggests otherwise. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Hi. You are right that the article in question has prior history of bad faith edits. I also saw your references and noted that they are from a very narrow period of time, referring to a specific burst of notability in March 2010. The article itself spans a decades-long career.

:: In my opinion, this is a scenario where the name of the article can significantly disambiguate the subject from similarly-named subjects within and outside Wikipedia. Searching for "Kripalu" takes the user to Kripalu Center or its founder Kripalvananda both of which turn out to be unrelated to the subject of the Kripalu Maharaj article but is a completely different body of work in a related domain.

:: On the other hand, searching for "Jagadguru" does overwhelmingly point to this person, indicating that it is indeed a uniquely distinguishing part of the name that we should leverage within Wikipedia to disambiguate.

:: I could locate a large number of articles from prominent Indian newspapers that use the full name, including the honorific. See [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/soul-search/the-timeless-legacy-of-the-fifth-jagadguru/articleshow/117240770.cms The Times of India], [https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/dharm/my-journey-of-40-years-from-curiosity-to-devotion-1107035 Dainik Bhaskar], [https://www.punjabkesari.in/chandigarh/news/these-3-remedies-will-relieve-your-stress-2065048 Punjab Kesari], [https://www.amarujala.com/business/business-diary/vrindavan-dr-vishakha-tripathi-ji-helped-14-000-needy-people-on-her-way-2024-12-05 Amar Ujala], [https://www.timesnownews.com/bizz-impact/jagadguru-tradition-difference-between-original-and-gaddi-dhaari-jagadgurus-article-151438264 Times Now News], [https://www.mid-day.com/buzz/article/understanding-jagadguru-tradition-5-authentic-jagadgurus-of-the-world-5652 The Mid-day] or [https://www.republicworld.com/initiatives/jagadguru-kripalu-ji-maharaj-the-embodiment-of-devotion-and-spiritual-love Republic]

:: As you pointed out, the the guidelines suggest using Honorifics in the title and when {{tq|the subject is not known except with titles or other honorifics}} or {{tq|where they become the best means of disambiguation}}.

:: I would request your help in navigating this change. Saksham (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{reply|Saksham}} I don't believe the exceptions to use of honorifics apply in this case but you can start a move discussion as per WP:RSPM so that others can weigh in and consensus determined. Abecedare (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Good morning / night Abecedare.

There is this user who goes by AbhijnanGhosh87 who has engaged in hostile behaviour towards me.

This started when he tried to source information using "EurasianTimes" which promptly led me to notify him that his edit was reverted for the second time by myself, after he had been notified that it was unreliable twicee. He then proceeded to @ me on his own talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AbhijnanGhosh87#Regarding_Edit

and subsequently engage in a childish hostile reply, to when he is reminded that his edits have been reverted due to using an unreliable source, he proceeds to very clearly imply that I'm Pakistani by indirectly making fun of my apparent nationality.

I believe this behaviour from him warrants another warn for his continued conduct, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AbhijnanGhosh87#May_2025|as he is no stranger to making unsubstantiated edits, despite being warned already by SwatJester and myself for using dubious sources]. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|DarkPhantom23}} I haven't looked at the underlying content and sourcing dispute, which I trust you all know by now should be resolved through talkpage discussion, WP:RSN, WP:DR etc. But [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AbhijnanGhosh87&diff=prev&oldid=1291596149 this comment] by the editor was beyond the pale irrespective of what your or any other editor's nationality is, and I have blocked them for 3 days. Abecedare (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Good evening Abecedare. Sorry to bother you again.

Upon further examination of this user AbhijnanGhosh87 it appears he has made disruptive edits disregarding the warning of SWATjester and violating WP:RS seemingly knowingly, as he had been specifically warned about this instance, 3 times.

Disruptive edit 1:

Explanation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PL-15&diff=prev&oldid=1291597398|This user deletes a paragraph which has been sufficiently cited with reliable sources.]

Disruptive edit 2:

Explanation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PL-15&diff=prev&oldid=1291599430 He then proceeds to add to the PL-15 article, citing Firstpost as a source], which has been unanimously denounced as a fake news website.

Reverted by other users:

Explanation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PL-15&diff=prev&oldid=1291747286 His post was then reverted citing conflicting information and unreliability of firstpost]

Disruptive edit 3:

Explanation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PL-15&diff=prev&oldid=1291751018 He then reverts this reversion claiming to add several "authentic sources" which again, aren't classified as reliable].

There is another report by a user in regards to his conduct. Therefore in combination with his incivility and the fact that he is ignoring an administrator's warning. I firmly believe that he is not here to edit articles in good faith as demonstrated by his unwillingness to change. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|DarkPhantom23}} At a quick glance, the issues at PL-15 are a content dispute that should be settled through talkpage discussion and, if needed, escalated as described at WP:DR. So far all the communication has been through edit summaries and no one involved in the above edits/reverts has started a talkpage discussion. Pinging {{Ping|Swatjester}} as a heads up.

: PS: Firstpost is not a fake news site per se. Please follow the source cited in the (pretty poor) List of miscellaneous fake news websites article and see what [https://web.archive.org/web/20240201023653/https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/apr/28/blog-posting/fake-news-story-about-trump-banning-facebook-execu/ PolitiFact] actually says. There may be legitimate reasons for rejecting FirstPost as a source for this article/topic but those specific arguments will need to be made at the talk page or relevant boards, and throwing around labels is not sufficient or helpful. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I came across {{no ping|Amogh Tripathi}}'s unblock request, and was going to decline it; IMHO, they would benefit from the three months coolings things off, and should spend that time reading some of our guidelines etc. before they violate them, for a change, and not only after the event (if at all). However, I then got to the bottom of the page where they are asking you directly to lift the block, and you only say you're "hesitant" to do so, therefore I didn't want to decline the appeal without checking with you first. Let me know? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|DoubleGrazing}} I'm fine with a decline. I don't find their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amogh_Tripathi&diff=prev&oldid=1293182341 latest post] encouraging since it reeks of "promise anything to get unblocked", which is what I saw during their last unblock request. I'll drop a note on their talkpage spelling this out too. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the swift reply. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Abecedare FascinatingStreet (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Commented at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigKrow&diff=prev&oldid=1293597156 BigKrow's talkpage]. Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

With regards to cleaning up the pages [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/LesIie/0 LesIie created], I'm in agreement with {{U|asilvering}} and {{U|Vanamonde93}} that PROD is the best approach. To started the ball rolling I've trimmed down William Harrison (brigadier) to what sources actually support (to make it clear to others that he's a footnote in the dustbin of history) and PRODed the resulting stub.

I'm not sure what the best way is to organize the PRODing of the rest, let alone how to tackle the rest of their edits. As with many sockpuppets, my impression is that not all of their edits were wrong, but sorting out the good from the bad could be time consuming. Have you organized cleanups of this sort before? What is your advice? --Worldbruce (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:My advice is borrowed from the folks at WP:CCI: WP:PDEL the lot. Which is to say, PROD everything, rollback everything. Make sure you link the AE report when you do (hopefully this helps ward off well-meaning calls to AGF). -- asilvering (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::I've done the rollback - just the easy ones, where a) the rollback script would work and b) LesIie wasn't the article creator. I don't think I missed any. Since anything left is already a bit more of a pain to remove than just pressing a button, I think the best way to handle it is to PROD everything, wait for those PRODs to expire, and then have a look at what's left in their contributions history to identify anything else that might need to go. -- asilvering (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply|Worldbruce}} You have taken a deeper look at the editors' edits than my spot-check, but I agree with your assessment that their contribution (whether a result of their own efforts or LLMs) are a mix of (1) legitimate claims supported by the cited RS's, (2) claims not supported by the cited RS, and (3) fabricated sources. If LesIie had only been upfront about their LLM use etc when questioned at AE and listed the affected articles/edits, we would have been better positioned to retain the edits in the first category. But since that didn't happen, I believe the approach of mass roll-back and prods suggested by {{u|asilvering}} and {{u|Vanamonde93}} is the way to go.

::That should take care of the low-hanging fruit although it will still leave the problem posed by, for example, their [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=LesIie+&page=Indo-Pakistani+war+of+1971&server=enwiki&max= 100+] edits to Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. Anyone know of a tool that can mark up the content in the current version of an article that was added by a specified user? Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There is the MediaWiki browser extension [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_That%3F Who Wrote That?] It's a cool tool, but doesn't know whether something LesIie is credited with writing should be undone or was in fact an improvement. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I was thinking of that but what we need is it's converse, ie, a tool that marks up all the content that was contributed to the current version of (say) the article Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 by a specified user. That content and cited sources can then be examined for source misrepresentation/fabrication. The examination will still need to be done "manually" but is somewhat easier than checking the whole article for such issues. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I see that [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_That%3F Who Wrote That?] can "highlight all content by the same author" when one hovers over any content contributed by them. And since we know [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1971&diff=1271841046&oldid=1268177253 some of the content] added by LesIie, the tool should make it easier to identify all the content they contributed. Will try my hand at it someone over the next day or two. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• I have prodded ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_dictatorship_in_Pakistan&diff=1293811435&oldid=1292946322 eg]) the [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/LesIie/0 remaing 17 articles] created by the user; They were the sole significant contributor to all these articles, with the other editors' contributions being mainly copyedits, adding categories and similar formatting and MOS fixes. Abecedare (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. I added what I want to do on the Doomal Rajput talk page around 30 days ago, but I haven’t gotten any response. Just posting a reminder could you please reply? Thanks! HistoryofKashmir (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply| HistoryofKashmir}} Done. See my note at the article talkpage for details. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Here you have proposed the articles should get deleted as the author reportedly used LLM or AI. I have seen his other articles, some of them were truly poorly sourced. But these 2 are well documented, and similar articles like them on similar topic exists. Such as Military dictatorship in Brazil, Military dictatorship of Chile, Indo-Pakistani air war of 1965 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I deprodded this article on behalf of a timid newbie. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Bearian}} The editor who posted on your talk page had also participated in the AE discussion that led me to prod this and other articles created by the now blocked editor (see also the discussion above).

:{{reply|User:Lt.gen.zephyr}} do you object to the article being prodded on "soapbox" grounds or do you also object to the proposed deletion on the grounds that it potentially contains fabricated and misrepresented sources, possibly generated by an LLM? Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::I have viewed maximum of thr articles created by him. I believe alot of them are poorly sourced, perhaps also generated by an LLM and yes contains some fabricated information with no neutral pov. But I think Pathankot airstrike, Battle of Kasur (1965), Military dictatorship in Pakistan and Indo-Pakistani air war of 1971 are well documented, along with having a neutral pov. I don't think these articles should get deleted along with the other articles with poor sources. Articles similar like this on same background exist in wikipedia. I believe at least these articles should not get deleted, rest may get as they fall under faulty articles. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Pathankot airstrike & air war of 1971 are considered an important part of the respective wars. Even the neutral claim that the attack had been done, and India & pakistan both suffered good loses. Hence these 2 article is a good one and a part of history. I believe other articles created by the author don't have much notability, such as Dhaka defence scheme (adhoc). Articles like these created on a temporary topic dont have much widespread information, neither it is known to all. These articles may be redirected to parent article, or may be recreated. If allowed, I'll be happy to restrain the lesser notable articles with much better sources. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{reply|Lt.gen.zephyr}} These articles appear to be well-source at first glance, as was true for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Harrison_(brigadier)&oldid=1293210750 William Harrison (brigadier)], and is generally true for LLM creations. If you or anyone else has checked that the cited sources exist and verify the content they are cited for, I personally would not object to the articles being retained. Barring that though, I believe the current articles should be deleted through WP:PROD or WP:AFD, and if their subject is notable (as is likely), recreated from scratch. Abecedare (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have checked the sources of all 4 articles mentioned above, and in my opinion they are good. If needed, Ill be happy to add more sources. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{reply|Lt.gen.zephyr}} Have your checked whether the sources actually verify the content they are cited for? Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::About military dictatorship, the bookish sources does exist, though the other sources's links dont seem to work. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I went through sources of air war, and they seem to worked and yes, they cite the content. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• I went through the references of the military dictatorship article and none of the links seem to work. Looks highly suspect to me and I it best to delete it (or, at best, stub it for rewriting). RegentsPark (comment) 16:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Zephyr, you are welcome to de-prod any of the articles for which you believe my prod-reasoning does not apply and the particulars can be discussed at a future AFD. I plan to wait for at least a week before nominating the articles for deletion through AFD since by then we'll know which prods were contested.

: By the way, spot-checking Indo-Pakistani air war of 1971, I found claims unsupported by the cited sources. For example, the article says, {{tq|Early in the war, the IAF bombed Tejgaon and Kurmitola airbase on 4 December, effectively neutralizing PAF operations in East Pakistan.}} citing [https://web.archive.org/web/20070112032245/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878969,00.html this Time magazine article] (not sure why the [https://time.com/archive/6816675/the-world-bangladesh-out-of-war-a-nation-is-born/ correct direct link] was not provided), which afaict does not mention "Tejgaon" or "Kurmitola". The underlying claim may well be true but the sourcing is false, as often happens with LLMs. Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for waiting for a week. I'll go through Leslie's articles, and will try to fix them as much as I can. Just make sure his articles don't get deleted in the next 7 days, then we can do an AfD and discuss further. Don't archive this section in your talk page as well. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No problem. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello there,

::::I am coming here after doing a significant change at Javed Hassan.

::::The previous version of the article had much unsourced information, and it sounded a bit pro-pakistani, breaching WP:NPOV. I have removed all the unsourced and poorly sourced information, and have added much better and reliable sources and I have tried to keep the tone as neutral as possible.

::::I believe this article should not get deleted. Some points about it -

::::1) The officer is a three star general, making him one of the top officers of the army.

::::2) He has Hilal-i-Imtiaz and Sitara-i-Imtiaz, these are respectively second and third highest award of Pakistan. A person who has been bestowed these two award is notable. Passes WP:NBIO

::::3) Backed by numerous sources such as DAWN, The Indian Express and The Friday Times which all are notable news platform - the officer was one of the 4 officers who were initially involved provoking the Kargil conflict. This makes him much notable, as he was one of the core members of the operation against India. Passes WP:GNG
The original author might have used an LLM to generate the article, as the previous version hardly had any good source. But this version is much better, and I believe you will also agree to the fact. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Zephyr, thanks for your work at the Javed Hassan article. I haven't taken a careful look at your edits but if you believe that the potential sourcing and LLM issues have been resolved, then you can remove the prod template from the article, and perhaps add the above note to the article talkpage as an FYI for other editors interested in the topic (see WP:DEPROD for details). Such a process can also be undertaken at the other articles you mentioned previously.

::::: In a week or so I hope to take a look at the articles that LesIie created that remain undeleted to see if any obvious issues remain. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Alright, I'll keep you updated here about other articles once I work on them. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hey there, again here to bother you..

::::::I have revamped Pathankot airstrike, removed unsourced and excess information which do not go with WP:NPOV. I have also added some additional sources and remove sources which contradict itself.
Now I am facing a problem, I'd want your assistance to resolve. In the airstrike article, I have used 2 indian sources that claims IAF loses. One of them is pdf, another one is database, both of them are from same website of IAF. PDF says 2x mig, 6x mysteries, 1x gnat and 1x c-119 destroyed + 2x gnat and 1x mystere damaged. Another source of bharat rakhshak says - 6x mysteres, 2x hunter f56, 2x mig, 1x vampire.
These 2 source contradicts themselves, now which one should I use? 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have revamped some of Leslie's article, would love if you overview them. The statement of removing prod is attached along with (I have mentioned what edits I have done as well).

::::::1) Agha Humayun Amin - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agha_Humayun_Amin#c-Lt.gen.zephyr-20250605192000-FYI]

::::::2) Pathankot airstrike - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pathankot_airstrike#c-Lt.gen.zephyr-20250606180300-FYI]

::::::3) Farrukh Bakht Ali - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Farrukh_Bakht_Ali#c-Lt.gen.zephyr-20250606190400-FYI]

::::::4) Indo-Pakistani air war of 1971 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Pakistani_air_war_of_1971#c-Lt.gen.zephyr-20250606191000-FYI] 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Zephyr, military history is not really an area of knowledge or interest for me but I'll take a look at the articles over the weekend and let you know if I have any comments. Dropping notes at WT:MILHIST, WT:PAK and/or WT:INB may get you more informed input on the article content. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Alright, will be waiting for it. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Sorry, got busier over the weekend than I expected. Will try to take a look at the pages soon. Abecedare (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you protected Operation Sindoor due to repeated recreations without consensus. It was again recreated yesterday, one day after the protection expired, what should be done? Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Chaotic Enby}} The editor {{u|Navaneeth822}} has self-reverted and I have ECP'ed the redirect for a year. Abecedare (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)