Talk:Siachen Glacier

message: The section regarding the boundary dispute appears potentially biased, as it stresses a supposed injustice to India without really explaining the other side of things.  82.35.13.34 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain the exact lines and I'll see what can be done to tone down the "supposed injustice", if any. --Idleguy 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHy is there a pic of paks praying?--D-Boy 09:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible bias

message: :The roots of the conflict over Siachen lie in the non-demarcation of the cease-fire line on the map beyond a map coordinate known as NJ9842. The 1949 Karachi Agreement and the 1972 Simla Agreement presumed that it was not feasible for human habitation to survive north of NJ9842,
from . Stevage 07:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it. Idleguy 09:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm plagiarism 

message: I have noticed the undue weight give to India in many articles, perhaps due to the preponderance of Indian-related editors on the en Wikipedia. Please try to find sources that are other than Indian and American publications. Although I did much editing on Indian articles, I no longer do so because of this bias that, IMHO, is becoming evidence as is also  the ownership attitude of many Indian editors. Please give other countries with less resources a chance. Especially in the use of categories I have noticed the addition of an India-related category is always insisted upon, even though India's role  is a minor element of the article. I am just pleading for a less dominating attitude on the part of India-related editors, please, in favor of a more global and less nationalistic attitude. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with you completely. However, sometimes India-related categories are added with uses of the term other than Republic of India in mind. Unfortunately, however, templates with Indian flags have proliferated to many places where they shouldn't be present. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics/Archive_25#Indian_flags_on_irrelevant_articles. deeptrivia (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response. I read the link you referred to above. Is there a way that this issue of Indian dominance can be approached constructively? Wikipedia and Wikipedia portals hopefully are not to be used to aggressively dominate Wikipedia with the national presence of a country. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the Siachen War was cleverly started by the Indian armed forces. The Pakistanis thought the Siachen glacier was a disputed area and was part of the Simla Agreement. Interestingly, India made no mention of the Siachen Glacier in the Simla Agreement and moved its troops up to the Siachen glacier. The Pakistanis were caught in surprise and scrambled troops for Siachen. Their several attempts failed due to the altitude advantage gained by the Indians after capturing Siachen. The glacier is completely controlled by India after the ceasefire of 2005174.3.214.24 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight given to India 

message: :Image:Siachen-inf06-1024.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Siachen-inf06-1024.jpg

message: Does the glacier have any strategic value (fresh water, mountain passes, things like that), or are the two sides fighting over it only because they hate each other? Please advise. 96.248.235.84 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say it has some strategic value (you can view activities of the other from the posts at high altitude) but its primarily because each country wants to prove it better than the other. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic value 

message: Google Maps shows that the Siachen Glacier is a part of Pakistan. But, before people jump into conclusions saying that Pakistan controls Siachen Glacier... It is an error by Google or a deliberate fault which they are not ready to fix, even though Indian troops are at Siachen Glacier even now. Shall there be a topic about this on the page about the conflict with google maps? 96.52.161.123 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more.  Fixed in Google Earth too. DLinth (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Maps 

message: Note that there are two sections on the international conflict: Dispute and Border conflict. The first seems tilted towards the India POV. I don't know enough about the conflict to try to reconcile these sections: would anyone else like to attempt a merge? —hike395 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two redundant sections 

message: Please don't make such edits without consensus. In your edit-summary, you said it was "disputed", then how it became part of India completely? It is also divided between Indian and Pakistan like other cases. There is no 100% Indian control in Siachin. Faizan (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The edit is done in the pattern of other glaciers like Baltoro Glacier which are shown as pakistan even the  as entire Gilgit Baltistan is also disputed  as part of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Entire Siachen glacier from NJ9842 to Indra Col is under India's control.Pakistan is west on Saltoro ridge. See the AGPL. --Koodfaand (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  So that will (officially) make Siachen, which infact is a disputed territory part of India? If it were part of India, India would not be required to station a Corps size force there. Start a RfC if you are so angry with facts. You say, see AGPL, I say see the history - Siachen shown and accepted as Pakistan's part. So, where does the WP:NPOV go now? Stop the POV-Pushing. A disputed territory is to be written and shown as a dispute or else there shouldn't been a page on Siachen Conflict  —TripWire talk  18:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As per you logic , then Baltoro Glacier and Gilgit Baltistan should also be shown as disputed and currently under control of Pakistan!!! First make it clear, what is the dispute?? - is the dispute on entire formerly princely state of Jammu and Kashmir or just the Kashmir valley( which is entirely under India?? Siachen is also part of the formerly princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. showing the current Location and Conflict issue are two different matters --Koodfaand (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you miss simple explanations? How does my explanation makes Baltoro Glacier and Gilgit Baltistan disputed? Care to explain? Stop putting your words in my mouth. GB is not disputed as per the UN, just because India calls something disputed does not make it disputed. Either say, Siachen is not a disputed territory and tag the Siachen Conflict page for deletion or else accept that Siachen is disputed and we have to mention is at such. An area which is an active War-Zone cannot be claimed by one side as per sheer commonsense and more importantly WP:POV—TripWire talk  19:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  What are you talking!! even UN resolutions for plebscite was for entire formerly princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, not just a small Kashmir valley. That dispute include Gilgit Baltistan  and Azad Kashmir. Why Pakistan is not making these two areas as official  provinces ? Why people of these two regions can't vote in Pakistan General elections? Until the mid-19th century, the term Kashmir geographically denoted only the valley between the Great Himalayas and the Pir Panjal mountain range. Today, it denotes a larger area that includes the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir (which consists of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, and Ladakh), the Pakistan-administered autonomous territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan, and the Chinese-administered regions of Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract. only Pakistan POV cannot be thought as UN POV?--Koodfaand (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If Siachin Glacier is controlled by India then it should be written in that way, if Pakistan claims it then we can't write "Siachin, Pakistan or Siachin,(Disputed)" in infobox, if we write it here in that way in we should also write it in Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu and Kashmir. "This region is disputed between India and Pakistan but yellow one is Azad Kashmir controlled by Pakistan", we can't write in this way on Azad Kashmir article. Territory is disputed is another issue, there is lead and body of article to add dispute. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  Exactly, You can write about the dispute in the body part of the article, but the Location will reflect only the current Ground position, under whose control that area is . this rule applies to both Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and same as Aksai Chin , Trans-Karakoram Tract --Koodfaand (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , Gilgit Baltistan is also disputed and its not just claim of India but also claim of Paksitan. See map on official government website of Pakistan , you can see this map on all Pakistani government sites. So this entire Kashmir region is disputed, but no need to add one long sentence in infobox, if we add that sentense here then we should add it to all territory related articles on Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu and Kashmir. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  One, GB is not disputed, the map does not say or display this, GB is an administrative unit of Pakistan and is accepted as such the world over, read Gilgit Baltistan for further understanding. Whereas Siachen is where the war is still going on. How can a war zone he awarded to one side? Someone said that we can include the disputed status inside the text but the 'location' should be written as 'India', this is illogical to say the least. The map in the infobx does not simple shows the 'location' but also the status of the area and hence it must include the disputed status. Moreover, how can a disputed area (which you would mention inside the text) can be shonw as part of India in the same age? It's self-contradictory ro say the least. Lastly, when the UN will recognize GB as a disputed territory, we'll talk about it again then, till then it is useless to talk about something which des not exist, and the day the UN will recognize Siachen as a legal territory of India, we can also remove the disputed status of Saichen, till that happens, let's keep the POVs aside and see the official and internationally recognized status of Siachen and mention it as such. —TripWire talk  19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you see properly the official government map of Pakistan, Siachen is not included. it only shows upto Ghanche district upto the west of Saltoro ridge--Koodfaand (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  Not true.  I have dozens of Surveyor of Pakistan maps, and all clearly show Siachen as part of what is now Gilgit-Baltistan.  Pakistan's 1963 boundary treaty, signed and ratified, with China (objected to by India) included as Pak. territory Siachen and eastward to the Karakoram Pass.DLinth (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is logical because it is a disputed territory. Unlike india, Pakistan is not in the habit of claiming entire areas just by making colorful maps and declaring them (laughably inside its Parliament which only has say within India and the world doesnt give a tosh what happens there) 'as part of India'. Pakistan recognize the UN rulings which are internationally recognized, and accepted . What you, me or India or some e-warrior thinks is immaterial, what matters is what the world accepts. If the world legally and officlay accepts that Siachn is not an occupied Indian territory but a legal part of India, no one would bother to say it as such, untill that happens, I am sory, but the fact remains that Siachen is a disputed territory where two armies are involved in a  fight and cannot be 'gifted' to some country at Wikipedia. Sory, wont happen. —TripWire talk  20:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  then I am also sorry . then world also doesn't accept the Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan  as part of Pakistan either. These are part of the entire dispute on princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Its laughable because official government map of Pakistan is not showing siachen Glacier either.Its only upto Ghanche district. by the way. UN resolution on entire Kashmir princely state was passed under chapter VI, which makes it non-binding and subject to pre-conditions to be full-filled by Pakistan which Pakistan failed in 1948. Can Pakistan (who makes noise on any future action of government of India to abrogate article 370) relpy why it abrogated State subject rule in Gilgit Baltistan in 1974 and brought demographic changes in G-B by settling non-natives there, even though G-B is part of disputed region?  --Koodfaand (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matters if siachen is there in Pakistan's official map or not, main concern here it what to write in infobox, entire Kashmir's region controlled by India and Pakistan are considered as "disputed" but is there any specific need to add that one big sentense in infobox of particular article that "its disputed between India and Pakistan" when all other related "disputed" articles don't have it. And TripWire plz be a neutral editor, don't enforce your views, GB is clear cut disputed region which is accepted by Pakistan too. If you can't believe in Pakistan's official map then I can't do anything for that. ,  you can read this too. You don't have to project your national agenda here, but strangely your national agenda itself claims that Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are disputed regions. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  AJK and J&K including Siachen are disputed. GB is ONLY, i repeat ONLY claimed as disputed by India, not Pakistan not by the world. The maps show it as a separate administrative division of Pakistan just as FATA, tomorrow some may say that FATA too is disputed?! As far you question is concerned that should we include the entire sentence, well whether a sentence or not, it should clearly state that ut is a disputed area and not part of India.  —TripWire talk  20:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  ,  the dispute including G-B is between India and Pakistan. UN and other world countries will try to act as meditator. India claims Pakistan-controlled regions and Pakistan claims India-controlled regions. You can write about these claims and disputes in the body part of these pages, but NOT in the Infobox, which reflects ONLY the CURRENT Ground Position.--Koodfaand (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location in the infobox should be the current Ground position 

message: Please aviod such edits. Since when the entire Karakoram Range/Area became part of India? Have a heart, please!—TripWire talk  20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please try be neutral on Wikipedia or else you will be reported to Adminsitrators to block you for further editing for projecting your biased agenda.--Koodfaand (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not me who is doing editing at the article, but you who have the cheeks to make the entire Karakoram Range as part of India! What next? MOM is likely to land soon at Mars, would that make Mars as part of Indian territory too? If you lack knowledge, there's no harm in going through the relevant page at wiki atleast. You can visit Karakoram and see where it actually falls and which all countries it spreads into. You are being warned for this kind of edit, next time you are going straight to ANI. Thanks —TripWire talk  20:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That edit is for Siachen Glacier Location as part of current control of India, not for Karakoram Range. --Koodfaand (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: TripWire, please stop this pure nationalist attitude, users like you don't lasts long, you should discuss this issue here properly without any bias. We are not discussing siachen is disputed or not, it is obviously disputed, question is should we add it to infobox with that "long statement"? Answer is "No" because no other related article don't mention it in infobox. You can add it to lead. If you keep on adding that sentense to infobox then if tomorrow someone adds same sentense to infobox of Azad Kashmir then you should not delete it. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nationalist? How come you dont say the same for Koodfaand who is constantly pushing POV without any logic but dare accuse me of it? Please stop it! I have given you every logic to support my argument, but then it is you who is unable to accept the simple fact that where as AJK is a disputed territory, GB is not. You cant prove this by posting maps which shows it as an adminsrative territory of Pakistan. Had it been disputed, it should have been shown as such. Please come up with a source like the UN that says that as of today GB is a disputed territory? My argument is simple, write Siachen as a Disputed area, I have never objected on the words used to discribe this fact, it is only you who are pushing this onto me. —TripWire talk  20:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   , if you can see properly, Siachen Glacier Location is mentioned as part of current control of India, not for Karakoram Range.--Koodfaand (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its laughable that while  concedes Azad Kashmir disputed disputed territory, but not Gilgit Baltisatan, even though both are part of former princley state of Jammu Kashmir. He is just putting biased POV, while UN resolutions on Kashmir clearly says entire princley state of Jammu Kashmir including G-B is disputed  --Koodfaand (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol..prove it.—TripWire talk  20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I was going to make some changes to achieve neutrality but page got protected at the same moment. Anyway, it was me who requested protection. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  its laughable because  is NOT able to understand that  Siachen Glacier Location is ONLY shown as part of current control of India, NOT for Karakoram Range. --Koodfaand (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sir, it would not have been laughable if you atleast had not removed the word Kashmir from the edit like you did here, The only logical conclusion that can be drawn by your edit is that, the Location of Siachen had just moved from Kashmir to the Karakoram Range, which miraculously NOW ONLY falls inside India and not in China or Pakistan —TripWire talk  21:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway TW, I restored word "Kashmir" again and also removed Indian flagicon. Hope dispute is resolved now. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  , Karakoram Range is NOT entirely in India and I have nowhere mentioned it like that. See this 'version and its mentioned as part of Karakoram Range.--Koodfaand (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: TripWire, Plese be logical, read infobox of article Baltoro Glacier, this glacier is in Baltistan also reads like "Karakoram range, Baltistan, Pakistan". So is it means entire "Karakoram range" belongs to "Baltistan"?--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Human3015, please be rational. The infobox that you referred says "Karakoram range, Baltistan, Pakistan". Hence, it is understood that the portion of Karakoram Range in Baltistan is being referred too, unlike what Koodfaand did, by saying 'Karakoran Range, India'. There's a diif b/w two and you know it, but wont accept it for the reason which is beyond my comprehension. —TripWire talk  21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, this article is about "Geography", this article is not related to conflict. You can add conflict related material in Siachen conflict article. You same people (Faizan and TripWire) said on adding "human rights violations" in "Balochistan" article that "This article is about place not about human rights" and you reverted it, and respecting your views me too self reverted my edit. And here you people completely changed. This is pure article on "Geography", this article is not on war zone or conflict. Please try to be neutral editor. You can add conflict in Siachen conflict. Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but discussing the geography of the area, unlike in the case of Balochistan, does not and must not change the location or ownership of the entire area. Be logical, sir. —TripWire talk  21:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: TW, Why can't you read current version saying "Karakoram range, Kashmir, India"? Anyway, even if it is "Karakoram, India" then why it can't be portion of karakoram range resides in India?--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion was regarding the edit made earlier, not the one you made now. And for the second part of your question, why cant be "Nile, Egypt, Africa" and "Nile, Egypt" be the same? Enough of this discussion. Prove Siachen as a geographical region belong to India legally and and is accepted as such by neutral sources, and we'll move ahead, —TripWire talk  21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't talk about legality, in legal way Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are not part of Pakistan because you never signed legal "Instrument of Accession" with Maharaja of Kashmir which India signed. Anyway, its not issue here, question is what should be there in infobox, and infobox should not contain "that long sentense" because this article is about geography, and currently Siachen glacier is controlled by India(same way like Azad Kashmir is controlled by Pakistan), so don't ask for legality, its about who controls it. Thats all. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still stuck in the past? The same IoA which was never produced? Anywaz, Lahore is not disputed, so is Amristar, whay because an International Border runs between them. As per the Treaty of Versailles nor India or Pakistan can go and takeover Lahore or Amristar, but that is not the case with Siachen. A post here can be taken and claimed to be ors and a post there can be taken by India and claimed as theirs, but this wont mean that post will become part of India or Pakistan, because the matter is still disputed. That's whay there are armies fighting at Saichen and not at AJK or GB, so stop equating them with Siachen. You cannot equate settled areas with War zones. Pakistan's or Indians claim ALONE does not matter, what matter is the saying of indep bodies like UN or the international community, UN does not say Siachen is part of India, so there is no question that wikipedia will say so either. Simple.—TripWire talk  19:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme POV Pushing, Disrupting Editing to the extent of Vandalism  

message: Please replace "watershed" with "drainage divide" in the second paragraph.  This usage of "watershed" is confusing in some versions of English, but "drainage divide" is unambiguous everywhere.
192.12.149.16 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please add a space in the same paragraph.  1000 cm(35 ft) needs to have a space before the first parenthesis.  192.12.149.16 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: . Deor (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 26 June 2015 

message: Hi, :File:The Trekker's Guide to the Himalaya and Karakoram 02.jpg was deleted from commons 30 June 2015 reason "No permission since 21 June 2015", Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request  - Remove Invalid Image 

message: Two of the red linked images in this article have been deleted. They are  and . 
MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , the redlinked images have been removed. Nakon 19:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 7 July 2015 

message: The last RfC was closed with this result. Keeping in view that result, how should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed? Faizan (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment - The article on Siachin conflict says about the location "Siachen Glacier, in a disputed and undemarcated region of Kashmir". I would go with that one in this article too? Any thoughts? Faizan (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know. I would personally be fine with calling it just "disputed territory." But you did an RfC, and there was no consensus to say something plain like that. So we have to make compromises. The wording I suggested is based on what I have seen in some book or other, not in the context of Siachen, but regarding other major areas of Kashmir. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am ready to compromise. Can we go with Controlled by India, disputed territory claimed by Pakistan. Faizan (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry, that article fell off my watch list accidentally. In any case, I can't do much to help there, because even the result of the previous RfC is being questioned. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest that you ask an admin for help, perhaps . Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I sometimes pop back in to articles I have closed, to see whats going on. Your statement is wrong, and does not reflect the close. AlbinoFerret 04:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , I appreciate your concern regardin this topic, but non-admin closure do need "clear consensus", specially this topic is under discretionary sanctions, one can't decide major change in geographic topic on opinion of few people, specially some of above people who supported to add this in infobox have been topic banned for their overall nationalistic attitude. This is article not about any normal topic of "life and style or spirits, sports" to write something on the basis of "rough consensus", this topic is under strict discretionary sanctions and we should respect it. --Human3015Send WikiLove  15:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The only concern is that I like to see what happens when a RFC is closed out of curiosity. Please provide a link to the policy/guideline/DS instruction that says that clear consensus is needed. Also please provide a link to the policy or guideline that states there is a difference closing, depending on who does it. AlbinoFerret 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: RfCs are done to resolve the dispute. If we add controversial info without "clear consensus" then if tomorrow someone removes that info from infobox again then we can't say him that "don't remove this info, there is clear consensus to keep it". Instead we have to tell him that, "Please don't remove it, there is rough consensus to keep it". Then he will reply, "So it is a rough consensus, not clear, so I will delete it. Rough consensus is may not be useful for topics under discretionary sanctions."  At least as of now we can write about disputed issue in body, and as per WikiProject Geography there is no need to add territorial conflicts in infobox, specially when there is separate article on Siachen conflict. --Human3015Send WikiLove  18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I ask you for the links to policy/guidelines/DS instructions that back up your statements. AlbinoFerret 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't make it issue of prestige regarding who will "win" this discussion. I have already told you about WikiProject Geography. Moreover you can see Template:Infobox glacier, there is no place for "territorial conflicts" in infobox. I will copy paste the guidelines written for location section, The location of the glacier. Don't be too precise. Mountain, county, state and country are good in the USA. If the glacier is in multiple counties just list the state and country. For areas in other countries adjust accordingly.. Guidelines say, if the glacier is in multiple countries then juse list the countries, and in this case glacier is in one country "India". Do you want to ignore project guidelines for "rough consensus" that too for topic under discretionary sanctions. I think best resolution to this issue will be to follow project guidelines for Glaciers. Now please don't oppose my views just because we are on opposite side of the debate, please accept it if you think it is right. You can resolve this issue. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for the links specifically because I close RFC's. To my knowledge, none support what you have claimed, that clear consensus is required anywhere, or that there is a difference in closing depending on if its an experienced uninvolved editor, or an admin. Again, you have made a claim that rough consensus can be ignored for a topic under DS. Please provide the requested links to back up your claims. AlbinoFerret 19:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again you are ignoring project guidelines and not said anything on that. It seems that you only want to "win" this debate. See, Admin closure is important because we can't debate "neutrality" of admin because he gets consensus of community that "he is able as admin and he has NPOV", he gets vote of some 100-200 people from different background to become admin and neutrality of admin can't be debated. What ground you have that you are "neutral", why you can't have pro-India or Pro-Pakistani POV? Your neutrality or my neutrality is debated because we don't have consensus of community. Anyone with Pro-Pakistani or Pro-Indian POV can come here and can close this discussion in their favour. Thats why "clear and undoubtful" consensus needed for "non-admin" closure. You can't claim on any grounds that you are a neutral editor (neither I can claim). We should follow project guidelines thats what I want to say. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I am aware of this discussion, there is no need to ping me. If you think there is a problem with the close, I suggest you contest it on the appropriate boards. Since there is some confusion on your part, I will clarify the close again. There is consensus, its not a matter of just counting heads, There is sufficient consensus to move forward with changing the article in the direction of that consensus.  AlbinoFerret 19:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

text: You and I must have different definitions of clarity and the readings of the closing guidelines. It was easy to determine consensus, there was no question if there was or wasnt consensus. It wasnt perfect consensus, but rough consensus. Rough consensus meaning the majority of the editors who responded agreed that some addition was preferable. It was close to 2/3rds. There was no question if consensus existed. The form of the addition was the only unclear part.AlbinoFerret 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my above comment, also read guidelines at Template:Infobox glacier, read section 'Status' in it. It is about "geographical status" it is geographical phenonmena. Read  Retreat of glaciers since 1850 for more details. Also read Status and decadal glacier change. --Human3015Send WikiLove  08:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Read status section in "good article" Crater Glacier. We don't want to make this Siachen glacier a "bad article". please follow guidelines at Template:Infobox glacier and WikiProject Glaciers. --Human3015Send WikiLove  08:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I smell a high amount of POV from you and a great degree of WP:Truth. To be frank we dont need to source the suns brightness but even then I have added sources to my new edit. Revert only if you dispute sources.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't add something on which RfC is going on. No decision on that issue has been made so far. Moreoevr, section "status" in infobox is not for "political status", kindly read my above explanation. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, revert only if you disagree with sourcing. As to the status feild. Please do quote the "exact" sentence on wikipedia which says that "it cannot be used for political status".Till you do so , there is no grounds for reverting. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why you are adding that controversial line when RfC on same issue is going on? Can't you read  Template:Infobox glacier, read section "status" in it. I have once saved you from block  from Edit war, next time I will not save you. This is not good conduct, when RfC is going on you can't add your desired text whatever source you give. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I see consensus between myself, faizan, albino and Kautilya. This consensus makes the addition of this text "non-controversial". Feel free to revert me three times and get blocked.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  RfC is not closed, this is the serious conduct issue. There is no final decision on how "final text" in infobox should be. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think that the text is accurate then wait for another editor to revert. I'm sure if you are right someone else will agree and revert this. Until then it remains as 4 out of six editors agree on it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not how Wikipedia works, everyone is not edit warrior like you. Kindly self revert your self, it is serious conduct issue to do controversial edit with RfC being in progress. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: How should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ? 

message: * Comment - I think it is a bit too early to do an RfC. We should first pool some possible alternatives so that people have a clear idea what to comment on. My suggestion would be to use something like Controlled by India, disputed by Pakistan. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment - The article on Siachin conflict says about the location "Siachen Glacier, in a disputed and undemarcated region of Kashmir". I would go with that one in this article too? Any thoughts? Faizan (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know. I would personally be fine with calling it just "disputed territory." But you did an RfC, and there was no consensus to say something plain like that. So we have to make compromises. The wording I suggested is based on what I have seen in some book or other, not in the context of Siachen, but regarding other major areas of Kashmir. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am ready to compromise. Can we go with Controlled by India, disputed territory claimed by Pakistan. Faizan (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry, that article fell off my watch list accidentally. In any case, I can't do much to help there, because even the result of the previous RfC is being questioned. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest that you ask an admin for help, perhaps . Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I sometimes pop back in to articles I have closed, to see whats going on. Your statement is wrong, and does not reflect the close. AlbinoFerret 04:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , I appreciate your concern regardin this topic, but non-admin closure do need "clear consensus", specially this topic is under discretionary sanctions, one can't decide major change in geographic topic on opinion of few people, specially some of above people who supported to add this in infobox have been topic banned for their overall nationalistic attitude. This is article not about any normal topic of "life and style or spirits, sports" to write something on the basis of "rough consensus", this topic is under strict discretionary sanctions and we should respect it. --Human3015Send WikiLove  15:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The only concern is that I like to see what happens when a RFC is closed out of curiosity. Please provide a link to the policy/guideline/DS instruction that says that clear consensus is needed. Also please provide a link to the policy or guideline that states there is a difference closing, depending on who does it. AlbinoFerret 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: RfCs are done to resolve the dispute. If we add controversial info without "clear consensus" then if tomorrow someone removes that info from infobox again then we can't say him that "don't remove this info, there is clear consensus to keep it". Instead we have to tell him that, "Please don't remove it, there is rough consensus to keep it". Then he will reply, "So it is a rough consensus, not clear, so I will delete it. Rough consensus is may not be useful for topics under discretionary sanctions."  At least as of now we can write about disputed issue in body, and as per WikiProject Geography there is no need to add territorial conflicts in infobox, specially when there is separate article on Siachen conflict. --Human3015Send WikiLove  18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I ask you for the links to policy/guidelines/DS instructions that back up your statements. AlbinoFerret 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't make it issue of prestige regarding who will "win" this discussion. I have already told you about WikiProject Geography. Moreover you can see Template:Infobox glacier, there is no place for "territorial conflicts" in infobox. I will copy paste the guidelines written for location section, The location of the glacier. Don't be too precise. Mountain, county, state and country are good in the USA. If the glacier is in multiple counties just list the state and country. For areas in other countries adjust accordingly.. Guidelines say, if the glacier is in multiple countries then juse list the countries, and in this case glacier is in one country "India". Do you want to ignore project guidelines for "rough consensus" that too for topic under discretionary sanctions. I think best resolution to this issue will be to follow project guidelines for Glaciers. Now please don't oppose my views just because we are on opposite side of the debate, please accept it if you think it is right. You can resolve this issue. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for the links specifically because I close RFC's. To my knowledge, none support what you have claimed, that clear consensus is required anywhere, or that there is a difference in closing depending on if its an experienced uninvolved editor, or an admin. Again, you have made a claim that rough consensus can be ignored for a topic under DS. Please provide the requested links to back up your claims. AlbinoFerret 19:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again you are ignoring project guidelines and not said anything on that. It seems that you only want to "win" this debate. See, Admin closure is important because we can't debate "neutrality" of admin because he gets consensus of community that "he is able as admin and he has NPOV", he gets vote of some 100-200 people from different background to become admin and neutrality of admin can't be debated. What ground you have that you are "neutral", why you can't have pro-India or Pro-Pakistani POV? Your neutrality or my neutrality is debated because we don't have consensus of community. Anyone with Pro-Pakistani or Pro-Indian POV can come here and can close this discussion in their favour. Thats why "clear and undoubtful" consensus needed for "non-admin" closure. You can't claim on any grounds that you are a neutral editor (neither I can claim). We should follow project guidelines thats what I want to say. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I am aware of this discussion, there is no need to ping me. If you think there is a problem with the close, I suggest you contest it on the appropriate boards. Since there is some confusion on your part, I will clarify the close again. There is consensus, its not a matter of just counting heads, There is sufficient consensus to move forward with changing the article in the direction of that consensus.  AlbinoFerret 19:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

text: You and I must have different definitions of clarity and the readings of the closing guidelines. It was easy to determine consensus, there was no question if there was or wasnt consensus. It wasnt perfect consensus, but rough consensus. Rough consensus meaning the majority of the editors who responded agreed that some addition was preferable. It was close to 2/3rds. There was no question if consensus existed. The form of the addition was the only unclear part.AlbinoFerret 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my above comment, also read guidelines at Template:Infobox glacier, read section 'Status' in it. It is about "geographical status" it is geographical phenonmena. Read  Retreat of glaciers since 1850 for more details. Also read Status and decadal glacier change. --Human3015Send WikiLove  08:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Read status section in "good article" Crater Glacier. We don't want to make this Siachen glacier a "bad article". please follow guidelines at Template:Infobox glacier and WikiProject Glaciers. --Human3015Send WikiLove  08:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I smell a high amount of POV from you and a great degree of WP:Truth. To be frank we dont need to source the suns brightness but even then I have added sources to my new edit. Revert only if you dispute sources.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't add something on which RfC is going on. No decision on that issue has been made so far. Moreoevr, section "status" in infobox is not for "political status", kindly read my above explanation. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, revert only if you disagree with sourcing. As to the status feild. Please do quote the "exact" sentence on wikipedia which says that "it cannot be used for political status".Till you do so , there is no grounds for reverting. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why you are adding that controversial line when RfC on same issue is going on? Can't you read  Template:Infobox glacier, read section "status" in it. I have once saved you from block  from Edit war, next time I will not save you. This is not good conduct, when RfC is going on you can't add your desired text whatever source you give. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I see consensus between myself, faizan, albino and Kautilya. This consensus makes the addition of this text "non-controversial". Feel free to revert me three times and get blocked.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  RfC is not closed, this is the serious conduct issue. There is no final decision on how "final text" in infobox should be. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think that the text is accurate then wait for another editor to revert. I'm sure if you are right someone else will agree and revert this. Until then it remains as 4 out of six editors agree on it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not how Wikipedia works, everyone is not edit warrior like you. Kindly self revert your self, it is serious conduct issue to do controversial edit with RfC being in progress. --Human3015Send WikiLove  03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hello, please remove line "Controlled by India since 1984, claimed by Pakistan" from infobox written in front of "Status" section. According to Template:Infobox Glacier "status" is for geographical condition according to Climate change. You can read "good article" Crater Glacier where they wrote "status" as "expanding". So it is not place for "political issues". 
Most important thing is that above RfC is going on whether we should include or not-include this statement in Infobox, if include then how it should be written, no final decision has been made on that issue and one editor added that line without respecting RfC process. Thank you.
Human3015Send WikiLove  06:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Blatant misrepresentation of the said consensus. An admin Swarm ♠ has already admonished you about this kind of misrepresentation. The said admin called your view of things "Simply Wrong". The infobox text should stay as is until some sort of consensus is established "against it" as for the present there are four editors agreeing on it. I'm not sure now WHAT has to be done in order to put this text in this article. There is consensus, there are sources, there is NPOV, there is adequate weight to both parties. Just Please tell me WHAT needs to be changed? To be frank this is really infuriating, you just say , "NO" to everything, how about telling me what I am doing wrong? Are the sources not good enough? Is there POV somewhere? Dude just try to work with me here for a bit at least. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Location in the infobox is the current Geographical Ground position. For conflict, see the Siachen conflict--Koodfaand (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 18 August 2015 

message: People, please avoid adding India after Karakoram range  because it suggest that the entire Karakoram range is in India. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been reverted again. Please revert him, as his edits are contrary to the RfC result. Faizan (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don know, how you both reached that conclusion. Even in Baltoro Glacier page, the same format is used for Location .Karakoram range is spread across countries. It just depicts that the glacier is in the range .--Koodfaand (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear both, I prefer this version , which leaves Karakoram Range without any affiliation, and the status of Siachen reflecting the result of the RfC. , Baltoro Glacier is not comparable to this because Baltoro is on the other side of the Line of Control, which has been recognized as "sacrosanct" internationally. Siachen area is not demarcated by Line of Control. So, we can't mark it as belonging to either country. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with your preferred version, Koodfand should stop edit-warring now. , you can make your preferred change if you want. Faizan (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karakoram Range 

message: Anyone else notice the Sept. 25-26 disingenuous "end-around" attempt by an IP editor to change a dozen or so WP articles on a dozen or so features (peaks, mtn. ranges) within the Siachen-Saltoro area from "disputed" to simply "Pakistan"???  For his part, and going in the other direction, Koodfaand on those days changed the three main passes in the Saltoro Range (all controlled for two decades by India, claimed by Pak.) to "India" rather than "disputed."   I've changed back to the status quo all the articles that I could find.  Come on, folks... It's a "disputed area, controlled by India"....the WP status quo for many years, and backed by the recent RFC.  This is simply one of the "hottest" disputed areas in the world, shown as "disputed" by virtually all non-Indian, non-Pak. cartographic authorities (National Geographic, Google Maps, Times Atlas of London, US govt. (CIA maps)), etc., etc. at a level ABOVE other disputes:   Use (infobox, article, everywhere) of the term "disputed" for the Siachen area should be universal, and is a level above the conflicting claims elsewhere in the region (incl. much of Kashmir) with, unlike Siachen, "settled" in part by their internationally-recognized and universally depicted cease-fire or agreement lines such as the India-Pakistan Line of Control (south of Siachen...south of NJ9842), or the China-India Line of Actual Control.  The Siachen region is a major step up from those insofar as appropriateness for using the term "disputed." DLinth (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sept. 25-26 "end-around" attempt 

message: I'm imposing the following restrictions on this article and any other articles connected with the India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir:
Copied from Talk:Kashmir conflict
* An immediate 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
*A revert without discussion restriction. Any revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block. 
* A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block. 
* An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.
*Pinging  to take a look and see if anyone needs to be cautioned/blocked right now and to help keep an eye on things.
--regentspark (comment) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ... I just reverted an anon's pov change, then I looked here and see this ... so now what? I would say such a restriction would need a bit of warning - maybe a pop-up on the edit window? Perhaps semi or pending changes thingy ... Vsmith (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are ok. The editing restriction has been amended. I will try to find the updated restriction and place it here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - tho I wasn't really worried :) Seems when restrictions change the affected talk page should be modified immediately to reflect such. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

text: --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing restrictions 

message: @Capitals00 first removed a petty mention of 2012 Gayari Sector avalanche saying it was was unsourced  although the incident had its own article and was hyperlinked in the sentence. When the content was restored and references were added, he again removed it. The 2012 Gayari Sector avalanche was a major incident and was widely covered by local, Indian and international media and ought to be included in the article as it took place in the region, albeit without giving large details. Although as mentioned by Capitals00, the content  may not fit the Border conflict section, but can surely be added to Environmental issues section. , didn't Capitals00 violate your editing restrictions placed on this article by doing two reverts without a discussion?—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 08:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 1st was removal, 2nd was a revert. We both are at 1rr now. No need of any more irrelevant descriptions of this incident when "Pakistan lost 353 soldiers in various operations recorded between 2003 and 2010 near Siachen, including 140 Pakistani personnel killed in 2012 Gayari Sector avalanche" has been mentioned on Siachen Glacier#Dispute. Capitals00 (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure why there is a dispute about this. The sentence displayed above seems entirely non-controversial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no issue with it being controversial or not but relevance, that the text has been already mentioned in one section, and repeating same information in unrelated section is redundant. — MapSGV (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that there is no need to duplicate the content when it is already present in another section. However, I am going to add its entry to "See Also" - 2016 Siachen Glacier avalanche (article on the avalanche that hit an Indian military base in Siachen) is already mentioned there.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 11:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Sourced Content 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: There are not many well-done historical English language maps of this area. If our readers are reading books about the history of this area, they are going to need Cold War era English language historical maps to look at. Having these maps puts the historical understanding of the minor geography of this area in the English-speaking world into context.  If you want to see a similar argument I have made about maps like these, see China-North Korea border. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: These maps were made by elite cartographers for the US Army Map Service and represent a window on the historical (Cold War period) understanding of the minor geography of the Siachen Glacier area that is invaluable. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

text: If you don't like the large-scale map, I recommend at least keeping the smaller-scale one. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Geographyinitiative why are you talking to yourself ? see WP:INDENT. thanks for the pics. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see- I will stop doing that kind of indentation. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of Historical English-language Maps 

message: "The entire Siachen Glacier, with all major passes, is currently under the administration of India (currently as part of the union territory of Ladakh) since 1984."
Please change "is currently under" to "has been under".  The core of the sentence (without the parentheses) currently reads "is currently under the administration of India since 1984."  "Is currently" doesn't really work with "since". 208.95.49.53 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020 

message: Please add/remove some links:
*Introduction: "Third Pole" should link to the Third Pole article.
*Dispute: "Operation Meghdoot" is linked twice, so the second one should be removed.
*Dispute: "Warshi" should be redlinked.
*Dispute: "Line of Control" appears twice but is linked on the second appearance, at the very end of the last sentence.  Please shift the link to the first appearance, in the second sentence.
*Dispute: "Saltoro Ridge" is linked twice, so the second one should be removed.
2601:5C6:8081:35C0:D535:30D0:7E8B:7890 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020 

message: This article uses both "meter" and "metre" in a few places.  Please change "meter" to "metre" because neither India nor Pakistan uses the American spelling of this word. 2600:1003:B841:5B06:99F1:4BF5:6F34:D9EC (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021 

message: Si 122.176.244.241 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siachen glacier 

message: Such a biased narrative looks like Google is dominated by Indian Authors or indian management at least counter check it from Pakistan or any independent organization 101.50.121.70 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased narrative by Indian Authors 

message: The glacier features in Line of Control by Jeff Rovin in Tom Clancy's Op-Center series. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:CD47:88BA:9E8F:80F5 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture