User talk:AmitKumar186

Welcome!

Hi AmitKumar186! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, would love too. AmitKumar186 (talk) 11:05, 8 July 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.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made 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 (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 13:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR before making up conjectures in your recent edit and accusing others of vandalism. Wikipedia operates in part based on those guidelines, and not the dictates of whatever government order you want. Borgenland (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland as I am aware of the Wiki guidelines, the edits were removed by identified soc puppets. It is better to have an open discussion over talk page than purposely resorting to vandalism. Thanks! AmitKumar186 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed that edit previously due to reasons stated above. Per WP:BURDEN it should have been you who should have opened it on talk. Borgenland (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It would be great if you are politely enough in your approach. Secondly, this section was added way before you started making your edits. If there was something wrong with the interpretations, you could have started the chat. Open for a discussion only when the other user/WP:CTW is polite enough. Thanks AmitKumar186 (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Please do not falsely accuse other editors again of vandalism when they have had valid reasons to do so in their edit summaries. As the one who has been reverted by multiple editors in several instances, it is clear that WP:ONUS is on you to justify your edits rather than abuse WP:AGF in an ironic manner. Your continued behavior discourages other editors from making the polite approach that you demand and may itself constitute a WP:NPA. Borgenland (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Borgenland Please refer to WP:BOOMERANG and stop behaving like a bully rather than responsible /WP:CTW. Also, no one has accused falsely on other editors. All text added to Wikipedia is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (WP:CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), meaning anyone can use, adapt, or redistribute it, as long as proper attribution is given and derivative works are shared under the same terms. If you have better knowledge as per WP:STEWARDSHIP, as mentioned above I am open to conversation, provided it is in line with WP:Civility, so stick to basic norms, please refrain from WP:No personal attacks and WP:STRAWSOCK. AmitKumar186 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

If you have evidence that everyone reverting you in recently is a sock, then go file a WP:SPI rather than make outright false accusations without evidence, itself a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA, especially since it appears that none of the editors who have reverted you have been identified as socks despite your earlier claims. It is clear that these ramblings about licensing and gaslighting of yours do not justify your unfounded claims of vandalism against other editors in your edit summaries, not does it explain why your edits should not be reverted on grounds of WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOMUCH, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Borgenland (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

If you still do not comprehend things, [1], [2] [3] [4] and [5], count as false accusations and WP:ASPERSIONS along with your allusion to WP:STRAWSOCK, clearly putting you as the bully in this story. Borgenland (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)