Jump to content

User talk:TopGun/Archives/2012/February

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


Islamic republic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks for pointing this out. I think it makes more sense to link the words "Islamic republic" at the second instance, because it appears more cleaner. A good example would be the article on the Islamic Republic of Iran. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the bold title seems cleaner that way but if I was unaware of the term, I'd want to find out the details from the first occurrence. I don't have objections if the link is moved my point was only overlinking, but still can you propose that on the article talk? I think other editors currently giving it a over haul might have something to say too. Although I don't see any other reason to oppose the move of the wikilink to the second occurrence. Just that it might be questioned at FAC. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Talk:Pakistan. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pakistani English

Was browsing through the AFD's when I saw this one, must remember never listen to the nominator. I have already found three academic sources which discuss this in detail and have posted them at the AFD. You can use these on the article rather than the junk sources currently there. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will add them all to the article over time. Wasn't expecting some one to tag it for AfD... usually work slow on non controversial ones. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

For Pakistan Business Express. If you're free of course. I've introduced ten citations all at once, so it'd be a bit time consuming to format them all. Thanks in advance if you could do it. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. You can always get a run by adding article title here, no user rights required. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
PS. good work with the new articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks....the article looks clean now. I've noted the advice about square brackets in citations. Mar4d (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Np. The tool takes the bracketed (read titled) references as already formatted. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

South Asia merge refactoring

Hi Top Gun. Generally, you should not refactor comments of others without their permission. If the editor in question wants to comment without explicitly stating that they support or oppose a proposal, then that is their privilege. If you believe that the "support merge" should be explicitly included in the comment, then the proper course of action is dropping a note on that user's talk page asking them to either refactor the comment or to give you permission to do so. I also direct you to the following in WP:TPO you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. I don't disagree with your conclusion, the comment certainly sounds like a support merge to me, but it is always better not to put words into the mouths of others. Regards. --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the comment explicitly stated support so I added a header which was a mere formatting per WP:TPO (which I have read). Though the better idea would be to ask the user, but this was unambiguous. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Like I say above, you're putting words into someone else's mouth. Not a good idea. But, your call, I try to stick to 1RR and this is not important enough to break that vow. --regentspark (comment) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:TPO (Fixing layout errors & Fixing format errors) is what I meant to cite. If that user had reverted me I'd not revert at all. The second one was along with the citation of WP:TPO... not a big deal though since the comment was very clear. I get your point anyway... will take care. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
For record, I informed the user here [1] who made no objections. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Failed state index

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved to Talk:Pakistan

please see the references before tagging anything as "false information", i am adding the references here again for ur comfort. Please read these pages carefully

1) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/17/2011_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings 2) http://tribune.com.pk/story/193321/pakistan-ranks-12th-on-failed-states-index-report/

truth is always bitter but you have to accept it, and if there is nothing you can do about it, then please think twice next time before categorising a genune edit as "false information". --Morsecoder (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Take that to the article talk page and discuss it there before adding again. Your claims are very controversial at best and certainly wont get a place in the article in my opinion. Simply adding polls or reports does not mean that the information belongs to the article. See WP:TRUTH. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: Barnstar

Thankyou! Though you may or may not have noticed me a little less active now a days, which is due to me being busy at my recent job, so apologies for that. But I'm totally here till its an FA, and inshallah will continue to work on Pak related articles afterwards too. Cheers September88 (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Every one is a volunteer here. Can't always take so much time for the wiki, I keep going on and off too. Was just a recognition for the good work done. Looks like we're stuck up with the RFC for now (though we can still work on the final touches till its over). As soon the dispute is over we can go for FAC (will wait for enough people to be active on it at that time). Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
How long does it usually take at rfc? Plus I like your suggestion about FAQ subpage, lets work on it before nominating to FAC to avoid further unnecessary interruptions. September88 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The RFC normally takes thirty days to complete (can be relisted if there is more time needed) but if there's overwhelming support or oppose, it can be closed earlier. But the good thing is that since that is a deadlocked matter, the article is all good for any normal editing for the overhaul's final touches. About the FAQ, was just a stray idea in irritation from the disruptive tagging and editwars. I'm in for that so that any one who comes in for drive by tagging or additions can be directed to Talk:Pakistan/FAQ. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow thats a lot of days. But as it can be improved still I guess its ok. Will give suggestions for topics to be included in faqs on articles talk page in due time. September88 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Wikipedia turns slowly. But I guess this one will come to a sooner end. Ok, will wait for the suggestions. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm stalking, but I just wanted to voice my support over the idea of having an FAQ. This is a great idea in fact. I can already come up with some questions that would be relevant. I'll try dig into the archives to search for more contentious topics that may also be applied here. One question we can have in the FAQ is about the Kashmir conflict and the map of Pakistan which has been vandalized before precisely because of this reason (for example a question going something like "The map of Pakistan is incorrect!) referring to the orthographic map with Jammu and Kashmir highlighted and then a logical answer as to why the map is illustrated in this way. Mar4d (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol, no objection to this kind of stalking which is always helpful (I'm used to the hostile one too). Yes, that should really go to the FAQ. We can then put a talk page banner on the top linking to the FAQs - I've seen this on some other articles. This will help atleast in the case of those who are not actually intending to vandalize once it is a featured article. Also, please continue with any editing in the article, we shouldn't stop because of RFC. I'm thinking we should have sent it to FAC sooner. Let's finish it up for that over the RFC time so that we can do it as soon as its over. The repeated proposals from archives is a good idea to be added to FAQ. The talk page is getting quite some attention now, if we open a section on this there, we might even get more suggestions. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

I have brought this to DRN[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Eastern and western regions

Just wondering, is the following statement in the lead of Pakistan factually correct? Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, after a struggle for independence led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah that sought the partition of British India and the establishment of a new independent state for the Muslim majority populations of the eastern and western regions of India. The Pakistan Movement envisioned a separate homeland for all Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, not just the eastern and western regions (if that was the case, there wouldn't be any Muhajir people). Should the "eastern and western regions" be cut out, so as to just leave "and the establishment of a new independent state for the Muslim majority populations of the Indian subcontinent" etc.? Mar4d (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, better to remove "Eastern and western regions" which might invite another debate about whether it refers to just those regions or refers to the majority and hence the area. The sentence is clear enough without that. It should state, "Independent state for the Muslims of British India". --lTopGunl (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've amended it it to:
"Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, after a struggle for independence led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah that sought the partition of British India and the establishment of a new independent state for the Muslims from the Muslim majority, eastern and western, regions of India."
I think there's no more ambiguity now. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear TopGun: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Indians in Afghanistan.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Two sources you added to Quaid-i-Azam Academy are being discussed there. I can't see how they back the statements you referenced with them. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to back the statements, but the article since it had no citations. Feel free to move the citations to another place in the article. I've moved one to the right place. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Added more (academic) sources to the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence

The RFC is going nowere, I have brought the issue to DRN [3] Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean there's no consensus and are you out of noticeboards? --lTopGunl (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is ever so pointy to try and write a well researched and accurate article. I ought to be ashamed of myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Researched... right. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop engaging User:Darkness Shines

[4] How about trying this: State your case once, then move on. It seems, from the exchanges, that you're not going to convince each other of anything, so stating your case once should be sufficient, and it might allow other editors to focus on editing. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but he was demanding quotations which I was not bound to give and further escalating leaving notes to the closer. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I think this will help everyone. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Rediff a reliable source?

Do you happen to remember the talk page of some article where we were having discussion over some sort of content dispute and where User:Darkness Shines was claiming that Rediff is not a reliable source (or something along those lines)? Will disclose later why I am interested. Mar4d (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I vaguely remember that though I don't remember where that debate was... but let's take a look [5] [6] [7] [8], from what I gather, this is one of main stream Indian internet sources. One can be wrong, but then we take google news as reliable, don't we? I think it is reliable, but then it (only sometimes) depends on who has written the article or if the article is an opinion piece not endorsed by the publisher. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi am User:Anuandraj. Nice to have a talk with you but am sorry we meet this way. I am against any kind of war, let it be edit wars. but am sorry i reverted your change because that altered the table alignment and you made it without a note in the article's talk page. I myself talked to scholars to find out a personification of Pakistan. But no one could find any. Somebody who is involved with news media for quite a lot time can only find out one. I need your help there. The article has a lot of potential to be a featured one. It talks about the origin of human idea of 'person'ifying their area of dominace. Let's have a cool mind and find it out. Anu Raj (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thankyou for taking a good faith start over. I've explained the reasons to you in that discussion. I think that is sourced content. Anyway, I can fix the table if that was all the issue with the edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've found a common man. please have a look http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/01-anti-us-cartoon-were-here-to-help.gif?w=1000&h=760 Can you identify the character? The search is on. Anu Raj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC).
Lol, this one was obvious. It would be good idea to find free images like those (if available) and upload to commons. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hostile

I decided to do a couple of edits a few days back but have run into a total blizzard of opposition. Is it always like this? See Sockpuppet thingme. Argcontrib (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, actually it is not that hostile. Some users might have mistaken you for some one else. If you are not that person, you can offer them to get a check user on you and clear the misunderstanding. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC v editing practices

I wanted to note, that when you reply in RfCs and similar threads, you might want to keep the proper formatting: indenting your comments with just semicolons you break the list, which is a discouraged behaviour. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to list my points under the discussion, rather was discussing the same point that was given above. I do make separate points when a discussion on something different starts. Is that what you meant? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I mean the simple formatting issue:

Wrong formatting:

Why? Example1 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Right formatting:

You'll need to see the source markup to see my idea. Though visually indistinguishable, these patterns result in different code and different load on servers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Got it. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Pakophobia

A straight question: can you see that book in full view or not? I don't mind whether it is online or because you have a copy of it. If you can see it then you can provide some context; if you cannot see it then the statement should be removed at least until you or someone else can sort out the sourcing issue. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The snippet view does show some context, which is mentioning an anti-Asian step. I'm currently looking for a better preview version. But I don't think this should be removed. The source is an academic work, mention in which is clearly notable, and after all... the article is not being sourced by this source alone - just that term is. We have many other sources for the article. Not being able to access the source is not equal to lack of verifiability. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. I have proposed at Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment that the statement be deleted for now. You can always reinstate when a better context/alternate sources appear. There is absolutely no point trying to wikilawyer with me about WP:V etc. I'll go through the rest of the article, just in case there are other problematic sources such as this. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not wikilawyering... and (though not required to) I'm trying to find a better preview. I'll reply there. Lets keep the discussion in a single place. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
For record

Here's a preview with context. I think this is enough as it directly uses the term in the context:

even though it was easy to fan Pakophobia under the circumstances.43 The Prime Minister of Pakistan, on the other hand, asserted that Nehru was not afraid of aggression from Pakistan, but was protesting against US aid for fear of..

[9] U.S.A. and the Hindustan Peninsula, 1952-1966 - K. K. Kaul - Google Books. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOVN post

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard's talk page. Bit belated but hopefully still relevant. Nightw 18:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Darkness Shines' restriction

Baiting Darkness Shines into violating his WP:1RR claiming that you are not under a revert restriction – though technically correct – is certainly disruptive and can be seen as a form of WP:GAME, especially considering the fact that your interaction has often been suboptimal, in the past.

You may not be under a revert restriction, but that does not give you licence to entrap your opponent in a content dispute and then go block shopping. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've not done that (and will not do that). To start with, Darkness Shines is the one who follows my edits and still I don't follow his. So entrapment is out of question. The fact that I verified the references for him and then gave him explanations is self explanatory that it was a pure content dispute to which he still reverted (I was not alone in disagreement with him either - on both articles). His WP:BATTLE of still following my edits has not stopped though... you thought his sanction would stop that, but no.. he just had to comment on an ANI post and mess around when an IP was making rude remarks to me on multiple pages. I reported him on the appropriate noticeboard and the admin there did acknowledge that he had breached his restriction. It will actually be a relief for me if I don't get to edit with DS again. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I have elected to walk away from some subject areas in which I have an interest purely in order to avoid certain people. It did me no damage: there is a world of knowledge waiting to be tapped out there and if, for example, DS were repeatedly to follow you to articles concerning molluscs or something similar then you might have a good case for a stalking/hounding allegation. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Really, can't help if he even follows me to an ANI board and add his comments to a report about an unrelated rude IP. And yes, he did follow my edits to unrelated non contentious articles. I have a whole list, and then DS admits to it (and does not think it is wrong). This is is not just an allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Honestly, your battleground mentality is a problem just as much as Darkness Shines's is. In the "pakophobia" case, there is a problem with sourcing and various editors, including Sitush, who was entirely uninvolved, have said as much. Instead of starting an edit war, gather the sources on the article's talk page and discuss the issue there. What's the harm if the article doesn't look the way you'd like it to for a day or even two? Neither of you is completely innocent here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I have provided sources there. I did not revert war when sources were requested. I simply added them there. Yes, there might be a problem with sourcing but I'm not the contributor for them all.. and I did more than I was required to, to provide information about the sources at that article as well as the other one I mentioned in the report. If you see I did leave it to DS's version (one which it still stands - other than sourcing of content, which I did on request)... so your WP:BATTLE accusation is completely wrong. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The battle accusation is correct, about both combatants. Please stop engaging each other or editing the same pages. Pseudofusulina (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I can stop replying to his claims, but as far the editing goes he says he follows my edits, he needs to stop doing that. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Like I said above, go edit something where it is unlikely they will follow. I could use some help with articles about early British pugilists, for example. Neither of you own any article. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I never say I own an article (actually I cite against that). Anyway, wouldn't that be easy... hound some one, forumshop the admins and then push the opposing editors off the articles for good. Can't contribute to those I wouldn't have any interest in anyway (and I actually do edit a variety of them, just not as remote as you suggested). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
How about you follow me around? Your basic knowledge of Pakistan would make you good for editing some of the articles I've edited. I work full time, so I have limited time to edit. If you look at some of the caste, Sufi saints and poets of Pakistan, villages, plants articles of the area I work in, you could contribute well to those articles, and Darkness Shines can simply stay away from them until the two of you learn to interact. Your help would be greatly appreciated with articles I've seen, and you have the requisite background knowledge (you can more than find Pakistan on a map). There are some disasters on my suggest bot list (one of my user subpages), also, where your knowledge would be helpful. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Can surely help you (though it'll be a bit slow with some content disputes piled up). Thanks for the offer. I'll check around your list. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That's better news. However, it would be better still if you tried to get away from the content disputes. Sooner or later, unless something gives, people are going to end up with long blocks/interaction bans etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That wouldn't be the way to solve content disputes. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank, TopGun. I know you know how badly South Asia is represented on en.wiki! Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, mostly stubs. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

JF-17 airspeed

Done. Something fishy there. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Not his fault, PAC's specified figures come without certain parameter stated clearly hence the confusion for ignorant fools to assume things there. As a retired crew chief, all I can say is... learn to read between the lines, because when it comes to statistics, manufacturers are quite the cherry-picking lot sometimes. Do you want more clues? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Guess they don't release the accurate figures anyway. Although a simple math would have been fine by the wiki, but that's not what he was doing. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Some what settled I think. Will check out the articles too. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Forgive him too! What did he do? About Raj, haven't had any interaction with him recently... don't know about this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your twinkle warnings balance that stance, don't worry --lTopGunl (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
He added this before too.. looks like he was 'invited' to add it back by an IP on this talk page this time (if the IP was another person). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Right! --lTopGunl (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment modification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved as JCAla self-reverted. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

JCAla editing my recent comments.. [10]. Last notice of an edit after final warning: [11]. Previous report of repeated moves of comments [12] resulting in final warning [13]. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Look, I didn't want to duplicate the source under the list of sources we both worked on, didn't really see it as a comment but rather a list. If you don't like it how it is, tell me, and I will shorten the quote you provided back and provide it under my name in its full length again - although we then will have it twice. Just tell me. Also, I know, you have been very invested in the "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" issue. As a good faith effort, I offer you to write your opinion about the ongoing discussion here, and I will link it at the talk of the article/disamb. Hope that is allowed since it does not mess with the preventative nature of your block. JCAla (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I would like that the comments signed by me are not edited without prior permission (except indentations and formatting) as per talk page guidelines. You know you can just ask sometimes. I removed the section header as the follow up discussion was coming under that other wise. Using a bold title and following up with discussion below would probably helpful to uninvolved editors. You can surely give the rest of the quote right below my comment with your own signature. Editing my comment just changed its context as I was referring to only Pakistan's views. Yes, I was replying to Pakistan-administered Kashmir discussion and stated my views there. We had a larger consensus with a complete discussion on whether to keep the article or not. That RFC resulted in merging that article. Azad Kashmir article could easily tell why and how GB was separated from it as it was the whole entity before 1970. I offered a redirect as the term was already being mentioned in that article which was enough of its weight. I don't know if you can comment on my behalf from here...but you can certainly quote me as saying that from there if you would like as I've said all these things already on that talk page. As for this... I'll close it here if you agree not to edit my comments as I'm convinced by your explanation of the change as reasonable (but it does change context as I would be referring it in the discussion, you would now know.. simply complete the rest below it with an indent). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
With regards to the source list, changed it and wrote my comment below your comment (what I earlier had perceived as you just adding to the list - and as such being no comment, thus no comment modification. Again, didn't want to duplicate one and the same source). You can write what you wrote above about "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" in a separate section here on your talk, and I can link it on the talk of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". I think it won't mess with the preventative nature of your block, but if it does, I ask any admin to immediately tell me and I will undo it. I am just doing it as a good faith effort since you were heavily involved with that article. JCAla (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix, I get your reasons. If you are ever confused between the difference, all signed comments are statements from the respective user and your reasons might be good, but (even correcting grammar or spelling) can often change the context, you would want to consider that for other users too. You can quote (copy-paste or link) me from the above comment as it is just a restatement of my comments on that talkpage, so it won't have any issues regardless unlike a separate statement for it. By all means add a new section to my talk page if you want any further discussion on Pak-administered Kashmir. Closing this so that the comment issue is dumped off, not a big deal anymore. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The train has reached Amritsar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sorry, I had not realized you were still blocked. I have asked the blocking admin twice to unblock you. I posted a response on the AFD for Dal Khor regarding The train has reached Amritsar being a short story and Pseudofusulina seems to think I was trying to bait you, I was not. I created the article as you can see. It seems to be a highly notable story and I thought an article on it would be a good thing. If you think I was baiting you then all I can do at this point is say I was not and sorry if you think that I was. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't patronize me again by asking for unblocks on my behalf. You actually did WP:SOUP the report after deliberately making reverts on tags. You also reported me in a tit-for-tat response. I still don't recognize that undocumented sanction which was imposed by someone who most probably does not have the authority or failed to justify it. As for Pseudofusulina, he seems to be correct, because I stopped responding to you in that discussion after making my case quite some time ago. Can't vouch for you. Your assumptions about notability are inconsistent. If that story is notable, that mention only gives that term more notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful, I try and do the right thing and you think it an attack. And I see above you still persist in trying to get me blocked, nice. I shall do you a favor then. I will never respond directly to you again. I will quite simply pretend you no longer exist. To any reviewing admin, unblock TG as time served please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, that would be big favour if you can stick to it unlike the statements made during your each block after stalking and reverting. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I am tempted to seek an interaction ban for the pair of you, so perhaps it would be wise for everyone to back away. It is quite plain that you are not going to see eye-to-eye and that there is a major clash of personalities here. It might be a good idea if you do not edit articles that the other has edited but I am unsure whether that is practical or not. An interaction ban would be a pretty bad situation, so if you can both self-moderate such a thing then it would be a much simpler solution. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
That seriously depends on him. I'm closing this before this becomes another bickering contest. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:DRN#Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion

Could we have your input for "Proposal 2" where the first reliable source has been found for POW & civilian internee figures in 1971? AshLin (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The first proposal was something better (as an idea, and the second one gives the figures)... some thing combined will be more appropriate. We will have to state in anycase that there are differences in sources. Sarmad took a better look at the figures, may be he can suggest. As far as it covers all different views from references in some way or the other, it is neutral. There was also a suggestion on the article talk page for the use of the word "civilian internee". I'll add further comments if it is not closed till I get my editing privileges back. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail

WC back. Check your mail.....just got a question.. Mar4d (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ty, checking and replying. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:1RR restriction

Per the results of a community discussion, you are hearby placed under a WP:1RR restriction. What this means is that you may not make more than one revert to any article in any 24 hour period. Escalating blocks may be enacted if you continue to violate this restriction. Any attempt to game this restriction by waiting until just outside the 24 hour window, reverting every day, once a day, for multiple days, or any other behavior described at Wikipedia:Edit warring will be the same as if you actually violate the letter of the 1RR restriction. Please use the article talk page to discuss edits you disagree with, and instead of reverting, first seek consensus or compromise during a civil discussion. --Jayron32 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hello TopGun, with this edit, in enacting a consensus of the community reached at the Administrator's Noticeboard, I hereby inform you that you are banned from

  • interacting with Darkness Shines
  • undoing his edits
  • making reference to or commenting on him or his actions
  • replying to him in any discussion
  • editing his user talk space
  • filing WP:ANI reports about him except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban.

The discussion leading to the ban may be viewed here. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An apology

I apologize for the harsh words I used about you at AN/I when it must have seemed as if everyone at Wikipedia was ganging up on you. However, the interactions between the two of you required a lot of effort on the part of both parties to maintain them. That said, I spoke harshly about you, because I wanted an interaction ban between the two of you, as this seemed to be the only way to gain you any space to edit outside of continually fighting serious anti-Pakistan bias. You may not see it, but that problem will eventually right itself.

You are a very knowledgeable editor in an area where few en.wiki editors have a store of information that allows them to correct some of the worse articles on wikipedia.

Wikiproject India recently posted a list of articles needing copy-editing. A number of these articles have ownership issues. When this arises, I suggest you just leave the article. I usually put a notice on the talk page, stating I will no longer edit the article due to ownership issues, to prevent the owner from bothering me about it.

Your help with any of the articles on this list would be greatly appreciated. Because so many en.wiki editors are unfamiliar with the most basic aspects of South Asian culture, even though your area of expertise is Pakistan, you thereby have a sufficient knowledge of Indian culture to help at a high level with these articles.

Please consider this. I think you are a good editor and have the potential to become an excellent editor to the benefit of en.wiki.

Pseudofusulina (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

PS My area is really the natural resources of Afghanistan, not India, but don't tell anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudofusulina (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for everything. I actually supported the interaction ban, infact I got it reopened to get formalized after it was closed in the middle. I can see the problem... that had to be fixed. Some articles do have ownership issues from some editors but it was more of other disruption. This ban will handle most of it. I'll edit all the articles I was previously editing and follow up on the new ones too. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Great! I look forward to working with you. Let me know if you run into issues where you can use a second opinion on content or editor. I work full time, but I monitor my talk page. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a bit late to tell people "don't tell anyone" when you post a message here! I had hoped (and I tried to avert at ANI) a formal interaction ban. On the other hand, Pseudofusulina is hitting problems left, right and centre despite their evident ability to progress matters with sourcing etc (always a good thing). Their claims of "ownership" where none exists may end up boomeranging. I did and still would encourage you to discuss, albeit that is now much more problematic because of the 1RR and the interaction ban. Pseudofusulina has the right idea, but it might help if they practiced it themselves instead of merely preaching. Backing off is A Good Thing but claiming that you are backing off because of ownership is not and I rather think that Pseudofusulina may soon find themselves in an awkward spot for making those claims. Let's put it this way: things have been said. rightly or wrongly. I wish you well: you have been around for a long time, have done a lot of good and then, suddenly, things have got heated. It will almost certainly happen to me in due course, and so I really do understand the conflict. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Pseudofusulina came in as an uninvolved editor, whatever views he has... so there's no point of citing boomerang to him. Any way, when some one backs off from an article there's no reason why they shouldn't tell precisely why they did it. I'm not doing that anyway. I'll appreciate that you do not fight with editors on my talk page now. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your interaction ban with DarknessShines at AN/I again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

What do you say to a topic ban enforced on Darkness Shines for all Pakistan-related articles (or at the very least, Pakistan-related articles to which you have contributed)? Should I ask for input from User:Pseudofusulina on this matter? Mar4d (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll support this if initiated but I don't expect good judgement from Pseudofusulina after his last ANI report accusing me of an interaction ban violation where I interacted with some other editor. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

SPA's

Just saw two new 'support' votes over at Talk:Pakistan#Support. User:Lforlinux registered on 23 Feb [14] while User:Madridbulls registered on 26 Feb [15]. Both accounts have less than five edits on Wikipedia. Am I being paranoid or has something kinda gone wrong here? Mar4d (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me check, there's already been one confirmed case of socking here, those were blocked... looks like another SPI is needed. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Filed an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lforlinux. Smsarmad included the RFC initiator into the investigation... good call I'd say. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Lol...it was too obvious. What I didn't know though was that all the socks are the brainchilds of the original proposer. Guess I'll have to watchlist that talk page now to detect further mischief. Mar4d (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I guess if he came back again we may find a new sock master among those supporting the RFC. --SMS Talk 13:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
5 socks = an editing pattern. Won't take long to catch the next ones. Better to monitor the master as well since his block wasn't indef. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dru of Id (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied there. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, your edit on the Talk page of ISI is definitely a violation of your interaction ban (since the RfC was initiated by DarknessShines). Fair or unfair, that's the way the ban goes. I'm giving you the chance to undo your reversion and continue to discuss it on ANI and to live with the consequences of whatever happens there. --regentspark (comment) 17:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've self reverted. However, I reverted JCAla's edit.. I don't have a ban with him. But to stay clear, I'll proceed with this at ANI or the closing admin's talk page then. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Better. We don't have a lot of Pakistani editors around and would hate to lose a prolific one - even though that would make life much easier :) --regentspark (comment) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, JCAla's reopening was pointy so I reverted, didn't know this would violate ban as there were no comments at ANI on a similar closure that was made on an AfD I started [16]... does it mean this was just as much a violation? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TopGun/Archives/2012/February&oldid=1143538498"