User talk:Primohare

Welcome!

Hi Primohare! 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! Schazjmd (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

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 The finger, 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. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my bad Primohare (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of House rat

The page House rat has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Hello, I'm Bored kittycat. I noticed that you recently removed content 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. Bored kittycat (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am facing problem in my phone Primohare (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Missile, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please stop making unnecessary changes to the lede as you did to the page missile. A missile by definition is simply a projectile which is self-propelled. The modern usage and the reference to unguided rockets has been made abundantly clear in the present text. There has been a previous discussion on the same (Discussion), and the current verbatim has been the result of the same. So, if you want to discuss regarding the definition, please engage in a discussion in the talk page and the change can be made if there is a consensus. Do not engage in repeatedly making the same changes without any reliable sources especially after it was reverted by with comments.

P.S.: Also, stop using weasel and unnecessary words in comments and mention only what relevant changes has been made. Cheers! M² (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got edit conflicted, additionally, please stop adding uncommon methods of employment to the "Type" or similar fields of missile infoboxes as well. Per MOS:INFOBOX, the purpose of an infobox is to summarize only the key points of an article, and that they should contain as little information as possible; in the case of weapons systems, this means that we do not include non-primary or extremely rare methods of employment. For instance, the GBU-10 Paveway II has been used to shoot down a helicopter; we do not categorize it as an anti-aircraft weapon by type. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that is the glide bomb not a missile Primohare (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it happened accidentally rather than by being planned or arranged Primohare (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but AGM-114 Hellfire was intentionally used as Air to air missile even though it was occasionally Primohare (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an analogy, I'm not here to debate the history of it, particularly when you're mistaken about it being an "accident" -- it was an intentional laser designation strike. The point is that you're attempting to portray fringe uses as if they were mainstream in the infobox; that's not the purpose of the infobox, and not desirable for the article, and goes against the general consensus for how we list munition "types". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we Primohare (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please stop your disruptive editing. Before continuing, please get consensus that Doms/Romani are considered Indian for this purpose. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. _signed,Willondon (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romani and Doms are not descendants of modern Indian. They are descend from Indian subcontinent during pre modern era. Primohare (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Please stop what you're doing until you can achieve a consensus. The community already hashed this out two years ago. _signed,Willondon (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my action Primohare (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]