User talk:Jamali287

Contentious references to S-400 Page

This has come to our attention that you have tried to incorporate several unconfirmed news and references that don't follow the wiki guidelines as in WP:SYNTH. Please refrain from making such changes in the future. Incorporate changes only where a valid and active reference is available and it follows wiki community guidelines for editing. Consider this your first warning. Failing to comply shall force me to report you to higher authorities overseeing wiki policies. Happy editing !! AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Your edits on the Sirsa Airbase incident from 10 May 2025 reflect a clear bias by including only the Indian government's narrative that the missile was intercepted, while completely omitting the Pakistani military’s version, which explicitly claimed it struck and damaged Sirsa Airbase during Operation Bunyan ul-Marsoos.

For a topic involving conflicting national claims, Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View (NPOV) requires that all significant views be presented — including official statements from both sides, and where possible, from independent or third-party sources.

Ignoring Pakistan's claim, which was widely covered by Pakistani media and acknowledged in official military press briefings, while solely referencing Indian sources, creates a propagandistic imbalance. If you present the Indian interception claim, then you are equally obligated to include the Pakistani strike claim with proper attribution.

Also, it would strengthen the article if independent satellite imagery, international defense analysis, or third-party reporting were added to provide a neutral assessment.

Presenting only one side's version is not encyclopedic — it is editorializing. Please revise the article to reflect both Indian and Pakistani positions, and ideally seek neutral sources to help readers understand the full context of the event. Jamali287 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually you are most welcome to introduce edits thatbare thoroughly vetted, the airbase in question had a 23 minute media clip live with a Boeing Airbus landing on it and showing no signs of damage to the property as was evident with the deep craters in Noor khan airbase. Also, the entire s400 squadron working was presented by a MEA briefing to neutral sources. Time stamped and available all over internet, the Pakistan version as you know too is not based on facts , showing a diesel mark as a sign of radar damage.

If you have radar imagery suggesting otherwise, feel free to upload but please follow WP:SYNTH before edition.

If you further continue with your disruptive edits without citing CREDIBLE source, I shall be forced to report you for action.

Happy editing !! AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I find it problematic that you're presenting the Indian media and Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ statements during the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict as fact-based, when there were clear signs of concealment and selective information. For instance, after Operation Sindoor, the Indian defence leadership avoided Q&A sessions for several days. When they finally held a briefing on May 10th, after Pakistan's retaliation, they acknowledged "combat losses" but avoided specifics. However, later on, the Indian Chief of Defence admitted in an interview with Bloomberg that India had lost jets. While he didn't specify which ones, this admission confirms that losses were initially concealed — a clear sign that information was withheld from the public. Meanwhile, Pakistan conducted press briefings, took difficult questions, and presented supporting evidence — such as intercepted pilot communications — during their air force's briefing. Whether or not you believe everything they said, at least they showed willingness to engage and back their claims with some form of evidence. Indian media, on the other hand, is widely known for sensationalism and misinformation during such conflicts. One infamous example was when several Indian outlets claimed that Indian forces had "destroyed a port in Lahore" — a blatantly false and geographically impossible claim, since Lahore is a landlocked city with no seaport. This clearly demonstrates the lack of fact-checking and the media’s role in promoting war hysteria and jingoism. In contrast, Pakistani media coverage, while not perfect, was more restrained and focused on official briefings rather than hype. As for the Pahalgam attack, India has yet to provide conclusive evidence about the perpetrators, nor has it apprehended anyone responsible. Yet narratives were aggressively pushed without clarity or transparency. I’m contributing to Wikipedia from a neutral and independent standpoint, relying on what can be verified. Accusing me of bias simply because I challenge a dominant narrative — especially when there are inconsistencies — is unfair and unproductive. Let’s focus on facts and credible sources, not assumptions about national allegiance. Jamali287 (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes Dawn and Pak express tribune are similar state sponsored media of Pakistan that hold no credibility and relevance, you know that too. Please let independent sources confirm the facts and edition will be done subsequently. I must also tell you that S400 system still functional at Adhampur has been vouched for by independent sources (not Indian Media only)which I can cite. You and me both like credible rwporting ,so be credible and accept facts as it is, yes there were losses on both sides but glorifying a non-existent strike which you still know is just a face saving gesture by the DG ISPR of PAF is not the solution.

Lets make wikipedia propaganda free and we are all brothers here, no personal enmities.

Cheers and happy editing. AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sirsa Air Force Station, you may be blocked from editing. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Sirsa Air Force Station—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ... discospinster _talk 17:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

He is againdoing the same thing on S-400 page. AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TonySt. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sirsa Air Force Station 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. — Tony ^talk 18:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Sirsa Air Force Station, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. — Tony ^talk 18:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at S-400 missile system, you may be blocked from editing. Referentis (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I am putting unbiased and neutral information. The previous information was fully taken out from Indian news media which is almost a state controlled, as you know Indian news outlets are famous for fake news especially during this cycle of India Pakistan conflict 2025. Jamali287 (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I am putting unbiased and neutral information. The previous information was fully taken out from Indian news media which is almost a state controlled, as you know Indian news outlets are famous for fake news especially during this cycle of India Pakistan conflict 2025. This is totally unfair, you can check I have added fair and neutral information not a conclusion. My information structure gives space to both nationals, third party/OSINT DATA and no editorial judgement. If there's any attempt to block me or remove my edits, I request that it be done transparently and with proper justification under Wikipedia's established policies. So far, I have not violated the guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, or civility. I’ve only raised concerns about one-sided coverage and the lack of Pakistani sources in events related to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. I would also like to know who filed the complaint, and on what specific basis. If the complaint is coming from an editor who has already admitted to being biased and has contributed only Indian media sources, that itself raises serious questions about editorial neutrality. My previous contributions simply aimed to balance an article that was heavily skewed with Indian official positions, ignoring Pakistan’s government statements and independent reporting. That is not against Wikipedia policy—it is a call for neutrality, which Wikipedia requires.Any administrative action taken without clear policy grounds and transparency will be challenged through proper Wikipedia dispute channels. Jamali287 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep removing content and replacing it with your own version. This is not how neutrality works. If you think that the article is one-sided then you would add additional information, and not remove what is already there. ... discospinster _talk 00:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), you may be blocked from editing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been the umpteenth time he has been warned but continues to make unconstitutional edits. AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jamali287 you are continuing to use an LLM to create junk edits and edit summaries here, here, and here. Please stop and discuss this here before continuing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

He has done it again on the S-400 page. This needs to stop. Calling for a block of user Jamali287 @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four @Discospinster AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Contentious references and deletion of references in s-400 page

Please note, despite several warnings, this user continues to disrupt the S-400 wiki page after getting banned for the same just 31 hours back. Please note @Discospinster@TonySt @Referentis

AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that @Jamali287 is using an LLM to edit rapidly and poorly. Highly disruptive. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that @Jamali287 is using an LLM to edit rapidly and poorly constantly. He is disrupting the page. Please note @Referentis@Discospinster AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I am following the norms and policies of Wikipedia but I think editors from India are violation of this such as @AbhijnanGhosh87, they are using this platform to promote their agenda and involved in gaming the system. These Indian editors are not neutral because they are citing Indian news outlets which have no credibility because of their known misinformation warfare, war hysteria and jangoism and continuous lies. Please take notice of this. Jamali287 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Pakistan media is neutral? Thats your logic, appeling to authorities for a permanent ban. AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four please take care of his disruptive edits everywhere. AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

So you claim that your Indian media outlet is fair, neutral and reliable. No one in this world take your Indian media serious. It is a laughing stock for the world. Everyone knows what Indian media does, who is controlling it, of course it's Modi's BJP Hindutva led government. So they want to make a false narrative so they are campaigning whole world and using this platform as their one of tool for lies and propaganda warfare. Which I will not let happen. I have never claim that Pakistani media is neutral but for sure it is not like Indian media which is a garbage in the name of journalism. So don't cry, have guts to listen truth. You want to complain, do it you are free to do but one thing must remember this is not your papa "Modi" platform. Jamali287 (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Referentis@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four@Discospinster

Personal attack. AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four@Referentis@discopinster ) Please take action against @AbhijnanGhosh87 for his promotion of fake news in Wikipedia. He is the one who got personal and was attacking me when I said Indian media is a fake news in reason for my editing and changes in s400 page, he got personal and questioning me about Pakistani media reliability, which I never said that Pakistani media is neutral but I did said this Pakistani media is far more better than India for it's journalism. Which he didn't liked and calling it a personal attack for no reason and threating me that he will complain to higher authorities. He is not allowing me to exercise my rightful right to edit Wikipedia and make it better which is against his agenda. Jamali287 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thats why you attack me personally calling Mr Modi as my father.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamali287#c-Jamali287-20250612141600-AbhijnanGhosh87-20250612132400.

Please note @Gotitbro @Abacedare AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

He is father figure for you Indians because you follow his ideology, in spiritual sense he is father of all Indian who follow him and loves him. Even many of you consider him as a father. Tell me about what are you views on Modi, maybe I would retract my comments and views on this. I am expressing "freedom of expression". You can't stop me to do this. Jamali287 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Grow up, stop personal attacks just points out your twisted sense of logic. AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Mr Modi is the Prime Minister of my nation , there have been many. We respect our national leaders but dont consider them as fathers. Havong said that, I dont follow anyone's ideology. I know killing innocents and harbouring Terrorists points out to a sadistic nature of any country. AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you condemned terrotist attack on Pakistani civilians and armed forces of Pakistan? Tell me? Btw you considered your armed forces as best in the world why they failed to stop this recently pahalgam attack, where was you red laser Adit Doval, and your famous brave "raw" agency. In a state smaller than the area of Pakistan and deploying more armed forces than Pakistan in this small region still can't stop the attack, and arrest the killers. Blaming Pakistan for failure is shame. This means your country is banana republic and your security forces are useless. Jamali287 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Abacedare @Gotitbro

He is continuing with his provocations. AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Gotitbro (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing as described at ANI and especially the battleground behavior displayed in comments such as [1], [2], [3] etc. Let me know if you are interested in gaining experience and learning to edit collaboratively by contributing to less contentious areas, and I'd be willing to unblock you with a topic ban from content related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan..

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Abecedare (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)