User talk:King Ayan Das

File:Plate of cookies.jpg

Welcome to Wikipedia, King Ayan Das! I'm Ozzie10aaaa, and I've been assigned as your mentor. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia!

File:Copyright-problem.svg When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to :Kareena Kapoor Khan filmography, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

:*If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;

:*If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;

:*If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm ZLEA. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, :HAL Tejas, 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. ZLEA _T\^C 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that you added HAL HLFT-42 to the See also sections of many fighter aircraft articles. Since the HLFT-42 is primarily a trainer/LCA, it should be added to the See also sections of aircraft of similar roles. I've reverted many of your additions, but I have left the additions to trainer/LCA articles. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:HAL HLFT-42 is comparable to light-weight two-seater fighter jets, such as the KAI FA-50 or the two-seater variant of HAL Tejas. The manufacturer claims that it will have advanced avionics and an EW suite, essential features for a fighter jet. Therefore, I kindly request you to refrain from reverting many of my additions, especially in the 'see also' sections of articles related to light and medium-weight fighter jets King Ayan Das (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

::I think you misunderstood what I meant. The See also section is generally for aircraft with a similar primary role. Aircraft such as the F-16 and Tejas are primarily fighters, and while they do have two-seat variants, that does not make them similar to the HLFT-42. Most fighters have two-seat variants, so using that to judge similarity would make for very cluttered See also sections. - ZLEA _T\^C 09:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

::If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. - ZLEA _T\^C 09:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you User:Ayan Das 5325? There's nothing wrong with having multiple accounts, so long as they are used for legitimate purposes, but it is recommended that users with multiple accounts disclose that they are the same person to avoid any confusion. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Red Kitten 01.jpg

Really good job on HAL HLFT-42 :)

Sohom (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to :HAL HF-73, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In this edit you claimed that [https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/aircraft/specs/hpt32-deepak/ this source] says that the HAL HPT-32 Deepak is a development of the HAL HT-2, which it doesn't and is clearly nonsense - what the source actually says is it was developed as a replacement for the HT-2, which is something completely different. In addition you claim that the source says that 144 HPT-32s were built, which it doesn't and that production continued until 1993, which the source doesn't say. It is entirely unacceptable to misrepresent the content of sources like this. Do not do this again.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning pn.svg Please don’t add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source, as you have done on the List of active Indian military aircraft article. Also do NOT insert flagcons into the tables MOS:FLAGCRUFT -Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources –Thank you FOX 52 ^talk! 05:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

:In related Wikipedia pages like List of active Pakistan Air Force aircraft, List of active Russian military aircraft, flag icons are also inserted. I add them to enhance the visual appearance of this article. Please don't revert all edits instantly. Which edits did I make in this article that were also made in related articles, but there were no reversions of these edits? King Ayan Das (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

::Just because you found in one article doesn't mean is supersedes the statute, those some that haven't been fixed - FOX 52 ^talk! 06:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

File:AnimatedStop.gif DO NOT engaged in an disruptive editing as you are doing on List of active Indian military aircraft article. You are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid conflicts. You must adhere to the regulations as required by the Wikipedia community, If you continue engage in this behavior you will be blocked from editing. FOX 52 ^talk! 07:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

:Okay, I understand that inserting flag icons into the tables violates Wikipedia guidelines. King Ayan Das (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

::{{ping|King Ayan Das}} Again you're creating more problems - "breaks" create issues for smaller screen, and additionally moving things around are not really an improvement- if you have number change(s) or additional aircraft that's fine - FOX 52 ^talk! 23:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template.

I have reverted your page moves of Cricket World Cup on the basis that it did not qualify as an uncontroversial move as there had been a previous discussion about the title of the page. I have also reverted the related pages moves of Women's Cricket World Cup and History of the Cricket World Cup as believe these could be controversial. You are welcome to submit a formal move request for these articles through the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. JP (Talk) 12:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Pleaae stop altering posts afte rthey have breen replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

:please, reply me in proper way so based on your reply I can reply you in Talk:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes. King Ayan Das (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

::I have, you make a point I disagree with, what you should not do is then alter the point, rather you should make a new post refuting mine. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=2026+West+Bengal+Legislative+Assembly+election|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, King Ayan Das. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:DRDO Ugram, 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) 08:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ICC Test Championship Mace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Smith. 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) 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, King Ayan Das. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "DRDO Ugram".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/G13?withJS=MediaWiki:G13-restore-wizard.js&page=Draft%3ADRDO+Ugram request its undeletion]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, King Ayan Das. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:DRDO Archer-NG, 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) 16:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at :Non-cooperation movement (2024) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nomian (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:King_Ayan_Das reported by User:Nomian (Result: ). Thank you. Nomian (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to :2025 Pahalgam attack, 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. Please read MOS:TERRORIST. GrabUp - Talk 13:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information orange.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at :2025 Pahalgam attack. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please read WP:TERRORIST before reverting. GrabUp - Talk 13:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information orange.svg Hello, King Ayan Das, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as {{User|Ayan Das 5325}}. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. GrabUp - Talk 13:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to :2025 Pahalgam attack did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

{{Edit summary field/OOUI}}

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting {{myprefs|3|check={{int:tog-forceeditsummary}}}}, and then click the "{{int:saveprefs}}" button.

Thanks!{{sp}} Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Commons-emblem-notice.svg You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 Pahalgam attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Kindly help me to expand the Lead section, India section and the Organization section of the Draft:Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack. Thank you for your contributions. Misopatam (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

I saw your recent edits in 2025 Pahalgam attack attempting to include contentious, non-neutral, and value-laden material in the first sentence of the lead, by citing the United Nations.

I do not believe the UN is a reliable source as it does not appear to be listed at WP:RSPLIST.

Documentation on referencing tells us that "Wikipedia articles require reliable, published sources that directly support the information presented in the article ... Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They tend to have an editorial process with multiple people scrutinizing work before it is published. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. Other reliable sources include university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and news coverage (not opinions) from mainstream newspapers."

I do not see anywhere that RS includes the statements of governments or intergovernmental bodies.

Additonal documentation tells us explicitely not to rely on unreliable sources when referencing, and to not add material that is not supported by other RS - as we discussed in the article's talk page, there are plenty of RS not describing this as a "terrorist" attack.

I think the UN's statement can support the claim that the attack has been described by those in power as a "terrorist" incident, by citing RS reporting on the UN statement. I believe it can be acknowledged in the lead that some have described the attack as "terrorist" since there are a couple of RS describing it this way. However per MOS:TERRORISM, value-laden and non-neutral descriptors like "racist", "terrorist", "fascist" etc needs to be widely described by RS in this way before it can be described in a certain way in the first sentence of the lead or throughout the article, and we just don't have that, yet. There are plenty of other incidents, groups, or people that I or I'm sure you would describe with these descriptors. But we have to maintain WP:NPOV.

Hope this helps,

Wikipedious1 Wikipedious1 (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for your detailed message. I respectfully disagree with some points you've raised.

:The UN Security Council is one of the world's highest international bodies, and its statements are reported through UN News, which maintains an editorial process and public fact-checking. Per WP:RS, official statements from major intergovernmental organizations like the UN — especially when published through their official news channels — can be used as reliable sources, particularly when discussing their own positions.

:While WP:RSPLIST is a useful guide, it is not an exhaustive list of all reliable sources, as clearly mentioned in that page itself. Many high-quality sources are not listed there but are still acceptable if they meet WP:RS criteria.

:Further, MOS:TERRORIST advises caution with "terrorist" language unless widely attributed. Now that the UN Security Council itself has described the attack as terrorism, and major media (ABC, The telegraph, others) have followed, it is no longer an isolated claim from only one party. Therefore, reflecting this in-text with attribution ("described by the UN as a terrorist attack") is consistent with both MOS:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV.

:I am fully open to compromise phrasing (e.g., "described as a terrorist attack by the UN Security Council and multiple reliable sources"), but I do believe entirely omitting this from the lead would itself be a POV violation by downplaying a major, widely reported fact.

:Happy to work collaboratively to find the best balanced wording that reflects both caution and neutrality, in line with Wikipedia policy. King Ayan Das (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would appreciate it if you proposed your edits in a new topic in the article's talk page, and engaged in discussion on that page, instead of just editing your version in again even after it's been disputed and removed by multiple users (see article's edit history). Looking over your talk page and the article's talk page, the edits you want to make are clearly disputed and requires consensus. You say you are open to compromise, then prove it by discussing the changes you want to make, instead of desparately trying and failing to edit war your changes in, and refusing to engage in discussion. Wikipedious1 (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::If you disregard my suggestion to you and go back to edit warring your preferred version, surely you realize that your edits are liable to be reverted by anyone since they are contentious, and people's first response will be to follow what MOS:TERRORISM establishes. You need to properly explain why you believe your edits follow WP style/policies and come to a consensus with other editors - some of whom have already touched upon this discussion in the talk page. (preferably your own organic thoughts and not chatgpt, please! I'm sure you are passionate about this and can discuss your opinions with your own mind) Wikipedious1 (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::At the very least, the phrase "described as a terrorist attack" (which was already present before the start of the edit dispute, and was probably added by you ) with all the reliable sources (which I had already added earlier) must be restored. I am not suggesting adding "terrorist attack" in the very first line, but given the significance of the event, it would be better if this phrasing is included at the beginning of the second paragraph. I hope this matter can be resolved here. Please cooperate! King Ayan Das (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@King Ayan Das, @Wikipedious1: Please discuss it at the RFC. GrabUp - Talk 07:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

There are a couple of contributors from P*kistan who wish to get our article Republic of Balochistan deleted by discussing deletion over here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Balochistan. The article is correctly formatted with no mistakes and has quality references from Indian Today and Print. Please help save it. Logichulk (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, but for sensitive topics like this, it's essential to rely on high-quality international sources such as Reuters or CNN, rather than depending solely on Indian sources. On a related note, please consider this line from the 2025 Pahalgam attack article: "The Resistance Front (TRF), which is believed to be an offshoot of Pakistan-based UN-designated terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)," — this statement is supported by reliable sources, yet some editors continue to push their point of view despite that. If similar issues arise again, I kindly request you to address them accordingly.

:Also, if possible, please look for any reliable sources confirming Indian reports of Pakistani air base destruction (if any exist now or in the future).

:If you need any assistance, feel free to reach out. Thank you! King Ayan Das (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Logichulk: You are now WP:CANVASSING, which is against our policy. You are also not assuming good faith. GrabUp - Talk 10:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your recent edits to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict page. I noticed that The Washington Post recent article on Pakistan Airbase Damage also mentions PAF Base Shahbaz Airbase. Please go through the below article thoroughly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/14/india-pakistan-strikes-conflict-damage/

Thanks and Regards,

Chandan Ck17840 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've just noticed it, but it looks like this has already been added and updated by other editors. Thank you very much for informing me! King Ayan Das (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. VirtualVagabond (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)