Talk:Battle of Chumb

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Chamb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070312102616/http://www.jang.com.pk:80/thenews/jan2006-daily/19-01-2006/oped/o1.htm to http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jan2006-daily/19-01-2006/oped/o1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Chamb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323054617/http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/chamb.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/chamb.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323054617/http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/chamb.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/sept99/chamb.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

CopyVio

How does my entire edit attribute to Copyright Violation, i have changed the vocabulary and structure of sentence that was used by [1], when it comes to the heavy dependence on a single source,that only occurred in the Prelude section which did not have much disputes.In the battle section i took information from two sources, one Indian and one Pakistani and then used them both collectively instead of them individually. An answer is awaitedسب سے بڑی گڑبڑ (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I will remove the Prelude section of the previous edits and restore the rest of the previous edit, @Aman.kumar.goel: do you agree سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ^(talk) 12:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: An answer is being awaitedسب سے بڑی گڑبڑ^(talk) 10:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Picture

So I don't understand why that picture was removed. The term "Wikipedia is not a place for Pakistani Propaganda" is really confusing since it was a picture related to this article. If you see articles of World War 2 Battles, they also have images which are related to the topic. If Wikipedia is sensitive on NSFW pictures, then link me to any rule which gives details on the issue. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary was, "This [Wikipedia] is not a Pakistani Army propaganda site!". You cannot take random images from the Pakistani Army web site and dump them here, without any understanding of what the page is about and what Wikipedia is about. What do you claim the image is illustrating? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I don't understand on what basis are you depicting that picture "Pakistani Army Propaganda". That picture was tagged as "A dead body of the Indian soldier who was killed by the Pakistan army troops in Chamb area (14 12-71)" in another picture in the same gallery. It's completely related to the article i wouldn't had uploaded it if hadn't had any relation to this article. But so far by observing other articles of battles in the cold war and world war 2, i noticed they don't have many pictures of corpses so i think that's where you are coming from. If you're Indian my apologies if you got offended by it or something. The main reason i uploaded some of those pictures is for this article. To me it seems underdeveloped without any headings etc. so i just want to develop it to some extent. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you will ever understand this. So let us drop it. Please don't use any dead bodies anywhere on Wikipedia unless everybody agrees that they are appropriate and necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 So it was an issue with the dead bodies all along Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)