Jump to content

User talk:TopGun/Archives/2011/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Article Siachen conflict

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. the original figure of 3000 was changed to 6000 (even the source u have included shows 3000 and not 6000) do you have any other reason for [edit] on the article Siachen conflict ??--dBigXray (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)--dBigXray (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not an act of vandalism. It was driven from the fact that Indian army ordered double the no of outfits as compared to the Pakistan army after they got information through their intelligence source.You should follow Wikipedia:Goodfaith policy while handling such edits. Also, please use the article talk page if you reverted me for something related to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • well your statement clearly shows that you dont even bother to read the mentioned sources completely , and give lame excuses for your editings that can very well be called Vandalism. Your arguement of Claiming to be editing on Wikipedia:Goodfaith will not work then. I encourage you to read the 3 page article again . it clearly states that Pak ordered 150 and india ordered double that is 300 . it does not mean India has 6000 soldiers. please check it again without reverting and editing Wikipedia articles or you can be blocked again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBigXray (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your mention of 3000 troops was not correct too. Infact the reference itself indicated 800 Pakistani troops. You should read what you link as references. This is not vandalism, its verification. And stop telling me of getting blocked unless you have a good reason. Do not edit my talk page for article related issues. Use the article's discussion page. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice

i suggest you re-write the following paragraph you added on the "sinking of pns ghazi"-page [1]. you should never copy-paste from a source as this constitutes copyright violation. copyright violators usually get banned indefinitely here om wikipedia. don't let that happen to you. you need to formulate the content with your *own words* and *own structure*. read the following wikipedia policy attentively and closely, Wikipedia:Copy-paste.-- mustihussain (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to re-write some of the content on the first edit. I've re-written the rest now. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

it's still not good enough. you have merely paraphrased parts of the paragraph i.e. substituted some words with others, keeping the overall verbatim structure [2]. it is clearly mentioned in Wikipedia:Copy-paste that this is not allowed. i would have written something like this:

An independent testimony stems from an Egyptian officer who claimed that the Indian ships were docked at the Visakhapatnam harbour when the explosions from the supposed Indian sinking of Ghazi occurred <:ref>http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/1971navalwar/lossofghazi.htm</ref> <:ref>http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/1971navalwar/lossofghazi.htm</ref>

now compare my rewrite with your rewrite. you see the difference? both the *words* and the *structure* in my rewrite are different because i wrote creatively and originally from scratch, with my own words, the facts *i* wanted to present. as a starter: my *initial* advice to you is to firstly read the source, then throw it away. think about what you read in own words, and then formulate *only* the facts you want to present in own words. be original, selective and creative.-- mustihussain (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Hmmmm.... let me give it another try. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Got your point. Edited. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

it's better but you're still paraphrasing (and you copied me!). also it's better to quote than to paraphrase. change the text to the following:

An independent testimony stems from an Egyptian officer who claimed that the Indian ships were docked at the Visakhapatnam harbour when the explosions from the supposed Indian sinking of Ghazi occurred, and that "it was not until about an hour after the explosion that two Indian naval ships were observed leaving harbour".<:ref>http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/1971navalwar/lossofghazi.htm</ref>

always use quotation marks when quoting, never paraphrase. keep it *short* and *simple*. don't worry, you'll get better at writing from scratch *if* you put an effort to it.-- mustihussain (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, copied your example because it was different from the source text. Changed the article now to the version you gave above. Thanks for helping. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
good, but there are some issues with your latest edit here [3]. give it a thought, and think how to write it *totally* from scratch. also write shorter, less detailed. however, you have made some progress.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I wrote this one from memory instead of reviewing the source alongside. Yet, the content was so full of factual statements that it still some how shows some similarity to the original content. Trying to "type in" for any edits I do now. :]
memorizing is not the point. you need to select the important points you want to write about. let me help you out:
  • pakistan retaliated
  • some indian boats were destroyed
  • the indians had taken countermeasures
that's it. these are the most important points... written in my own words. the rest is blah blah. *read*, *think*, *select*, *formulate* in your own words. no paraphrasing. no copy-pasting. write creatively and originally from scratch with your own words, own structure, and own understanding. -- mustihussain (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Current revisions of these articles are very biased or pro-Indian. Trying to tone them to neutral and put in some content from the Pakistani side. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

use this code for the source used in the first sentence of your edit at the "operation trident"-article (see the code by clicking edit):

now, for the second sentence just use:

  • <:ref name = pak_info />

now, the source will have the same enumeration.-- mustihussain (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahh.. thanks! Fixed the rest too. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
there are two broken sources on the page you need to fix. i suspect that <:ref name = "Pakdef" /> should be renamed to <:ref name = pak_info /> as they both denote the same source. i'm not sure but investigate it.-- mustihussain (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A tip

It looks like from this edit of yours[4] that you are unaware of Wikipedia:Canvassing, FYI. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It was done through wikipedia talkpage. Its not called canvassing. You need a better understanding of that. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You should re-read that. And here's something else for you: Help:Talk_page#Indentation. Jesanj (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You are misusing the statement about WP:Canvassing. Read the appropriate notification section:

"On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)..."

Misleading claims such as this come in WP:Harassment. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Those examples are not exhaustive. You should try reading the first sentence of your quote again. And here's how to deal with harassment: Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment. Jesanj (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
And I told a concerned editor who was participating in similar other topics. You are really really hard at hearing --lTopGunl (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
My point exactly. That creates a potential selection bias in your favor. Jesanj (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
That way you can go on and create controversy & conspiracy theories. You should assume that every one here on wikipedia is not a part of a huge conspiracy against you. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources in your recent editings

on Operation Brasstacks how can you include http://pakistanlink.org/Commentary/2006/March06/03/02.HTM as a citation ? please refer Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

Also one of your major source (the citation Pakinfo http://www.pakdef.info ) for your recent editings also falls under the same category. It has already been rejected by WIkipedia as a NON RELIABLE SOURCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_62#pakdef.info .

Kindly do not use such References for editing on wikipedia and also remove the editings you have done using the above NON RELIABLE SOURCE pakdef.info and others on various wiki pages that you have edited recently. thanks --dBigXray (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

These sources are not self published. They have been quoted widely on wikipedia. Before you remove any text, see comments in the edits. In so many places you have recklessly removed text which so many other sources confirmed. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
If you Disagree with (the citation Pakinfo http://www.pakdef.info ) that has already been rejected by WIkipedia as a NON RELIABLE SOURCE then i invite you to please go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_62#pakdef.info . if you are still not happy with that you can take that matter to the noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and get your case heard, and you can give whatever arguements or counter arguements in support of making http://www.pakdef.info a reliable source. As going by the current status pak def info is non reliable source. PLEASE REFRAIN from making edits by using non reliable source as it will only weaken your case and any other WIKIPEDIA EDITOR will revert your edits with all your hard work gone waste. I would suggest you to first get pakdef info, cleared by WIKIPEDIA before using it (as it is already blacklisted) inspite of whatever you may say . regards --dBigXray (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The results you've called as current status were inconclusive and a current RSN on going on the RSN noticeboard will decide this matter. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sinking of PNS Ghazi

While your first modification was assumed to be a mistake but your re-posting and reverting of proper edits seems to be a clear case of POV insertion and Wikipedia:Vandalism. Why have you modified text while references remain same? Why you keep using a forum as your main source? Repeated infringement will be reported to Admins. And finally dBigXray has raised a very valid point. Forum PakDef is NOT an WP:RS. Swift&silent (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I cited neutral sources to the article. You have reverted it masking it as vandalism. Review the sources before you make such disruptive edits.

Other sources which were left unchanged mentioned what the new edits said. I just reviewed them. You're repeatedly reverting text all over wikipedia. This does not help. WP:ownership

You've also edit Indo-pak naval war article without reviewing an on going discussion on the talk page. This is not the way thing work here. Read WP:BRD. All the information was well cited and mentioned/dicussed on the talkpage. This kind of disruptive editing constitutes vandalism.

See the talk pages for the discussion already in place. All explanations have been given there and in the edit summaries. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You removed the properly cited part where it was stated that Mines have a counter making it impossible for them to destroy the laying vessel. The most plausible explanation, reflected in almost all of the sources is that the depth charges by Vikrant caused an internal fire in Ghazni causing its store of mines to blast taking it down. This is echoed in the Russian citation too. Furthermore you removed the references to Rediff, Hindu and Tribune. Needless to say all three are WP:RS.

Anyway, I tried to locate the 'Raid' part you complained about in Naval war article but can find no problem or suggestion that it was attacked by someone else. Changed the Conflicts page's 1965 section to 'Sources Opined' meaning that it was their opinion. Lets just be Happy man! Swift&silent (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You just look at what is removed and don't see what is added instead of it. The sources sited told that the submarine was blown from inside out. Review the sources. Also, I've not thrown away any information. Indian version has the Indian POV given. You can add to it. Rediff and Hindu are Indian citations and not considered to be neutral.

The raid part clearly suggests contradiction, see article talk page.

Dispute is a neutral word used all over wikipedia. It is very lame to editwar over that.

Use article talkpage for this discussion to prevent confusion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So according to you Indian newspapers are biased while forum PakDef is credible!!! Swift&silent (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No. They are counted as Indian & Pakistani sources instead of third party sources! --lTopGunl (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And PakDef forum is a third party source? Swift&silent (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, its a Pakistani source, just like the Indian websites are quoted. The over all impression should be a NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been told many times and by many editors that PakDef is basically a forum and has been determined to be a Non:Rs in source list. Swift&silent (talk)11:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

please read above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hassanhn5#Use_of_Wikipedia:Verifiability.23Self-published_sources_in_your_recent_editings Just because a statement does not please you is no justification for calling it a POV you are supposed to give proper proof with NEUTRAL citation before calling it as POV. Please understand that by using Non RELIABLE sources you are EXTENSIVELY damaging the neutrality and credibility of WIKIPEDIA --dBigXray (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


Other sources have been given in this article. Your comment is of no importance here. Also, see article's talkpage.

ref: Till, Geoffrey (2004). Seapower: a guide for the twenty-first century. Great Britain: Frank Cass Publishers. p. 179. ISBN 0-7146-8436-8. Retrieved 2010-05-28.

these references have been disruptively removed by the above user without any explaination. [6] See WP:vandalism --lTopGunl (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What ? Please see clearly, mate. it is you lTopGunl (talk) who have deliberately removed those citations. that is not me check the name of editor in your link. you yourself are showing your VANDALISTIC changes, Thats nice, and a good thing to start with. i appreciate your point. --dBigXray (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of LYING outright, check out the heading of this section, and then check the link I gave in my last comment. Those references have been removed by the above user. After you've done that and cooled off, see WP:harassment & and stop flaming or I'll be forced to report you. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not get offended. you are free to do whatever you want. The admins will also see your history logs also in the process and a lot of dead bodies will fall from your closet. :) --dBigXray (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

dBigXray I have checked your edit history and I must say am impressed by your constant struggle against vandalism. Check your Page for a surprise ;). Swift&silent (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Blaming someone of vandalism when its not the case is clearly a personal attack wp:harassment. Those references were removed by swift&silent as the link shows. Don't sermon me about not getting offended after posting offensive messages on my talk page. FYI: My history logs are clean from inflammatory attacks. I will ask you not to edit my talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Dave, thanks for sorting this out. Hope it's fixed without a report. I've not yet reported at WP:Wikiquette assistance either, because I assume User:dBigXray listens to your advice. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with this article Hassan. If you check this article's history you will find that I was editing it some time ago with more sources giving different view-points, but was being reverted by editors like Wikireader and UplinkAnsh for nationalistic reasons. I did try to get neutral parties on board but it seems nobody is interested in helping in Indo-Pak disputes so I quit editing it to avoid edit warring with the above two editors. How are your attempts going? --Hj108 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah. These guys are now stalking my contributions list and editing every article I edit to push their pov. I've already lodged a complaint. Lets see. I'm just trying to get the bias out of those articles and adding verifiable information only. Looks like I've satisfied them on the talk pages of Operation Dwarka & Sinking of PNS Ghazi but its a long way to go. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to help you out but I'm determined to concentrate on my studies for this year, I'll keep your profile in my watch list. A few interesting sources for you that I've kept:
Obviously the important part of the above list is the General JFR Jacob article (in bold), where an Indian Army General states that he was told by a senior Indian Navy officer the PNS Ghazi had sank due to an "act of God" but to stay quiet about it so the Indian Navy could claim a kill. I've just checked, the article is still online. Indian editors I mentioned above claimed this to be a "fringe theory" and that Jacob is an army general so is not an authority on the navy, so kept removing the source from the article. Like I said, I asked for help on these noticeboards but nobody was interested:
Hope this helps, good luck to you and leave me a message if you need me. I won't be editing much for a while, but I'm not leaving yet. --Hj108 (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the sources. As of now, I've handled PNS Ghazi topic and its sinking article with neutral sources. I'll use these if some one comes up with another claim. I'm also not a regular because of studies. Feel free to email[7] or contact me on my talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A discrepancy

can you have a look on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_Navy#Pak_Navy_Northern_Naval_Command_.28NNC.29_Eastern_Naval_Command_.28ENC.29_.3F.3F seems to me a Discrepancy. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.paknavy.gov.pk ← check here if it verifies else remove. Also, all the wiki links made to those commands point to Indian Navy articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I had already looked on that link above. it does not say about commands or may be i could not find it there. Well it seems someone had copied the infobox from Indian Navy article and forgot to change, hence the result. Do have a look to improve it when u r free.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Just checked the rest of the article. The commands do exist. Just linked wrong. Remove the links. Wikipedia:NOTCOMPULSORY --lTopGunl (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am. But I thought we were last advised on a noticeboard to stay away from each other's talk pages... or are we best friends now? Anyway, Not compulsory part was for you too. Either you do it if you feel like or you don't. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing better if we can edit mutually without grudges (I've fixed those wikilinks and replied on article's talk). Probably our RSN is also resolved (both turning out to be reliable). Enjoy the festival ! --lTopGunl (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Operation Trident (1971)

Your recent edits to Operation Trident (1971) have been reverted because you restored the article to a previous version of your edits without following due process. In the process, you overwrote a number of corrections others had made. You also added back casualty info that was not part of the operation to the infobox. This has been disputed and is being disucussed on the discussion page of the article. Please don't attempt to undo these edits without first resolving these issues on the article's discussion page.Skcpublic (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The due process is WP:BRD. If you get reverted comment on talk instead of re-reverting. It is the responsibility of the one who gets reverted to present his case on the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
You need to follow that same due process. You changes were reverted first and you have the responsibility for getting consensus before you re-revert others changes.Skcpublic (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Check out those dates and the date you changed my edits. It was according to the consensus. I was asked to get approved the pakdef site as a reliable source to make those changes on the talk page, which I did and edited. You are the one here who edited content. I'm open for debate on the talk page of article. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
You didn't revert a single edit. You reverted back to arbitrarily previous revision. You undid info on attack on PNS Shah Jahan for which I had added 3 citations in my edit timed "01:55, 26 October 2011". You also did not get consensus on your infobox edits for including info on the retaliaion. Skcpublic (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your first edit to which you didn't reply on talk and instead made more edits. along with the revert the text I added in infobox was cited and is under consideration on talkpage and was not the purpose of my reverts. See article edit history for reference of who edited first and got reverted. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The comment on your edit of "07:54, 26 October 2011" says I reverted all your changes in a go since you did it in parts which would take manual effort. Just because it requires manual effort is not an excuse for reverting multiple edits. If you aren't willing to put in the effort, you shouldn't be editing at all. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reverting. You made no attempt to improve the edit that you are contending. If there is an alternate viewpoint, you need to work on incorporating that constructively into the article. --Skcpublic (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There were significant issues to warrant the full revert. You changed the fueling facilities destroyed to 'a fuel tank' and made changes at so many other places in the same way. Also, the infobox discussion was already going on, if you really are aware of all the rules of WP:reverting, you should know its wrong to edit that. About the comment, I can't seem to find the word 'manual' on both this and the article talk page (give the diff if you would like)... so i deleted that comment before you read? Doesn't that mean you can't talk about it? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Read the revision history on the article. Your most recent comment stamped "07:54, 26 October 2011‎" is "I reverted all your changes in a go since you did it in parts which would take manual effort." This clearly violates rules on reverting. Each of my edits was limited in scope. If you had an issue with the fuel tank edit, you need to either constructively edit or revert that specific edit with justification. You chose not to selectively revert each edit in order to bypass the 3-revert rule that you are so selectively quoting. On the infobox, you undid the edit by DBigXray first on "07:55, 16 October 2011". Heal thyself. --Skcpublic (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, found it. Yes, as I said, it was not an issue in itself. There were multiple issues. The rest of your edits were already discussed and had a consensus of getting the source approved, which I did. The infobox was already being debated upon. That makes some issue or other with almost all your edits. Manually editing each would still cause the same revert maybe leaving a few sentences. So it was better to discuss and then replace content manually to the current version. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
At this point, you've lost the plot. (1) You reverted the infobox edit of user:DBigXray first without due process. (2) I added 3 citations on the PNS Shah Jahan damage, 2 of which were neutral citations (against your possibly biased citation of pakdef, which must be used-with-caution per your own words on source approval. (3) I added date to the retaliation. You've undone all of this blindly and are stuck on justifying why you can't be bothered with making selective, constructive edits by clarifying issues you identify. --Skcpublic (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The due process was over. The source got approved so I edited as per consensus which asked me to get it approved. My words were caution is involved and not that the source should be used by caution, so donot misquote me. Even if we do take caution, you can not only refer to the previous discussion subjecting it to the approval of the source, but also, the source is fairly reliable since it has been quoted in various neutral books. The citations you added were in dispute. Thats called wp:brd which you didn't follow. The only thing that got removed was the date (as in coherence with my last comment) which can be manually added to the current version with more ease rather than manually editing every thing for that single edit. So there was no blind reverting carried out here. I guess this topic is moving towards the article issues rather than my reverts now, so the better discussion place would be article's talkpage. As for my reverts, I've explained, nothing was unwarranted. Since you eagerly presented me with WP:reverting, you should also see the section of the article WP:STATUSQUO. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute on Operation Trident (1971)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Operation Trident (1971)". Thank you. --Skcpublic (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Content

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 99.173.23.58 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for informing me, the browser didn't load properly and the edit was made till the loaded content. I'll re-edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN

involved in Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". Thank you. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TopGun/Archives/2011/October&oldid=1143539200"