User talk:TopGun/Archives/2011/November

Battle and theatre honours

Your point noted. However, the information is relevant and needs to be part of the article. It can be presented slightly differently and I will amend it subsequently. But however, you need to stop imputing motives. To balance the section, kindly source and add battle and theatre honours awarded to Pakistan Army instead of objecting to addition of content. AshLin (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Had I been imputing motives, I would have reverted you. I have assumed good faith and so should you. No, It is not about whether Pakistani awards are added in a huge list as well, its about notability and the long list which seemed to overshadow the section, however, you got my point. It was a friendly warning to amend it in a way that you don't get POV allegations if they are notable enough to be there. You don't need to be defensive about everything. See WP:BOLD. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ISI

Im trying to make the paragraph about ISI role in Balouchistan conflict more netural, but it contains out right lies like ISI is using LEJ etc terrorirst groups which still attack the govt...please can you monitor it to stop other politically motivated groups from editing it thanks --Ambelland (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I already have that article in my watchlist and am reverting any vandalism. Be sure to use reliable sources as your references so that editors don't object to you with POV label. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

here ...Ive restructed the page, so all the pakistan operation are together and removed some properganda like trying to portray Militia leaders as innocent but this user doesn't stop ..his sources are all from ethnic nationalist racist groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambelland (talk • contribs) 21:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the content you removed and I think it is a valid removal. Look at the references he added; they include wordpress blogs and other wikipedia articles. Don't worry about such edits. Keep track of edits of this user on this article since he's likely to added back again. I've warned him of vandalism on his talk page. Now on his next edit (if he adds content without a source or with a blog as a reference) revert and report him at WP:AVI. If that doesn't work, simply revert his edits warning him appropriately along each revert on his talk page so that administrators can see that he has been given warnings and incase he reverts you more 3 times in a short period (WP:3RR) report him at WP:AN3. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSN

You should not have moved my comment per WP:TPG. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My move was according to the guidelines with your comment unedited. Quoted from WP:TPG:

Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than subsectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g. :<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments

In addition you may review the consensus about the consideration in the collapsed section. The move was perfectly called for. Infact your creation of another subsection seems a bit inappropriate too since all other editors are commenting on the reliability too. I'll advise that you move that to the end of pakdef section. It is rather accustomary to bold your starting text in support or against the question because creating separate headings create confusing multiple posts. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your "signing" for me and then starting a paragraph with "Interrupt Note" is a violation of other's comments guideline. I suggest you remove my signature, move your "Interrupt Note" to the bottom or elsewhere in a different section so we can focus on determining the reliability of the source. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:TPG:

"Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :Heading added for REASON by lTopGunl (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add — USER NAME OR IP , — (continues after insertion below.) before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption."

Please stop assuming me to be a violator from the start, or you'll never be able to build a consensus with me on basis of reason. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail~!

Hello, TopGun/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani textbooks

Hi. Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion are rather stringent – the underlying principle is that speedy deletion actions need to be uncontroversial. If there is any scope for disagreement, a discussion should be started instead and consensus sought there (for the page Pakistani textbooks, the appropriate avenue would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion). My undoing of your CSD request does not constitute wholesale approval of the situation as it currently stands, merely recognition of the fact that there may reasonably be thought to be differing views on whether or not this constitutes an appropriate redirect (it is not, in any case, obvious vandalism). Hence to pursue the matter further you would need to take it to WP:RFD. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It significantly is obvious vandalism because the title Pakistani textbook controversy is significantly different from the title Pakistani textbooks. It would simply mislead a searching user for the textbook related content to the controversy. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:R#DELETE does not mention anything about the strings of the target and redirect pages having to be similar, only that there has to be a logical reason why one links to the other (point 5). If you want to argue this on point 3, presumably the counter-argument would be that this does not apply here (see e.g. WP:RNEUTRAL and related pages) because the only thing Pakistani textbooks are notable for is their bias. I'm not saying that that's right or that you're wrong, only that it is not unambiguously the case that one or the other. Hence, you would do better arguing your case before a larger number of people at WP:RFD than here. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam

Hello Hassanhn5. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this article is about a book, so WP:CSD#A7 does not apply. If you think it should be deleted, consider AfD - I do not advise PROD as I think it would be contentious. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for notifying. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: File:BarnstarPK1.png

Yes. In fact, I personally desighned this BarnstarPK1.png by modifying Original Barnstar. Szhaider (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Great. Did it get approved? I didn't see it in a list... --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A question

Have you edited under a previous account? Your insistence on attributing obvious statements of fact remind me of another editor. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this is my only account and I don't remember editing this article before. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So you have not edited Wikipedia under another account it the past? The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Never. Also, the statements are neither 'obvious' nor 'fact'. They are claims. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Karakul (hat) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Karakul

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed tag format. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakdef.info

Just had a brief look at the noticeboard, I guess PakDef has been declared unreliable by an admin? Pointless editing here if Pakistani sources are ignored.
--Hj108 (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was a fully WP:canvassed consensus. Same should have been done to br site otherwise. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Flying ace

We're seeing it very differently. I saw a rv & a change to a gf edit, back to what I saw as a bad one, with what looked like a POV edit summary. (As for the "moving", IDK where that's from; AFAIK, I never touched the refs.) That, followed immediately by a 3RR warning, looked to me like an attempt to silence me. Then accusations of personal attacks? (AFAIK I made none, & the 3RR warning to you was no different in my mind than yours.) Then "the discussion is over"? So all you want is the last word & what I'm saying doesn't matter? That's how it looked to me. (And still looks.) FYI, I never looked at the sources, 'cause I saw no need to; I'm not challenging the truthfulness or accuracy of the claims, just not believing them. (This sort of thing isn't new, which is one reason I don't.) Yet you took issue with me for that, too. Which only leaves me further convinced of POV editing. Am I overreacting? IDK. FWIW, the page is off my watchlist. I'm not interested in fighting over it, 'cause it just isn't worth it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We definitely are seeing it differently. About the moving, you are free to confirm from the edit history (anyway since we are over it there's no point). My 3RR warning was not immediate but after 3 reverts (you can confirm that too). And no, I did not want to silence you, I was rather expecting a debate from you, instead you gave back the same warning. I know you did not challenge the content and I didn't even blame you for that. But your comments on my talk page were not WP:Civil and then you accused me of nationalism even when you yourself agree that you weren't even challenging the content and just not believing it, that's all I meant by the personal attack. The sole reason for reverts were moving back the content that (maybe mistakenly or not) went to the end of the sentence while the references were in the middle hence making that sentence look as if its not supported by them. And yes, I certainly don't want to leave a last comment, that's why I repeatedly asked you to end the discussion (with me willing to do the same). There is no point in fighting on an article talk page if we are not talking about ways to improve the article (or the article content). I guess this is a clarification enough for my reverts and warnings. I've given you an explanation of how the revert warnings work on your talkpage. They are usually informative warnings which you can confirm from WP:3RR. Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

|{{uw-ew|Indophobia}=} JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've not gone past WP:3RR I guess. Also you might want to check the talk page where I have already discussed the topic and quoted the wiki's policy to the editor of which he is taking no avail. He's outrightly denying quotes that I link him from WP:MOS or anywhere else. I think he's the one editwarring here. You might also want to note that he did not assume good faith on my first edit (which was properly explained in the editsummary) and instead misused roll back feature to revert me with out proper explanation. My last revert was after basing my comments on the policy quoted on the talkpage of the article [1]. The user seems to be putting POV forks from the controversy topic to other topics with exact same content and is totally inflexible for debate, rather assuming me to be vandalizing. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hassan, go outside and take a breather for 1 hour, seriously. Come back to edit only when your mind is clearer, alright? Trust uncle Dave, its for your own good. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave, you might want to read his first warning (starting from that tone right from start) on my talkpage[2] without him leaving a proper editsummary misusing rollback as well as the comments on the talkpage linked above. I'm not angry or flaming, just reasoning with cool head. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently, the way we see it, your cool is a wee bit hotter now. Seriously, just go and take a breather, will you? Wouldn't kill you and chances are you'll be back with a clearer mind, just go already! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, if you think so. Though that matter is from last night and probably already stale to be hot on. Off I go. (PS I was already watching a movie when I got the notification. lol.) --lTopGunl (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• You don't have to break the three revert rule in order to be edit warring. Edit warring is repeatedly reverting to the same, or substantially, the same, version of an article or part of an article. Whether or not you have discussed the matter, whether or not other editors involved are at fault, and whether or not your edits are based on policy do not alter the fact that reverting to the same, or substantially, the same, version is edit warring. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right and the other party is wrong". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you could guide about obvious (properly explained) reverts vs no edit summary reverts along with simple denial on talkpage... what is the next step to it? I don't think DRN would matter since he's not even sticking to the clearly written policy? Does that go to WP:ANV? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan Air Force

Dear Hassan the page above has been vandalised by sock puppet users I have reverted the changes made by sock user: Iamtrhino [3] check this dif page for pov pushing on the Pakistan Air Force page please try and keep an eye out on the page as he is likely to be back trying to push his pov again on the article again I dont use wikipedia much so I am asking you a favour

Regards 86.176.204.241 (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, that article is on my watch list already. I didn't know of these edits before but I do revert any vandalism that gets noticed on my watchlist. I'll definitely revert if the user pushes POV or removes sourced content, but also consider reporting the sockpuppet. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

He has been blocked a while ago sadly some of his edits still linger on so I am trying to remove them from the page cheers for the response good day 86.176.204.241 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, if he's blocked its completely ok for you to remove all his edits. Consider creating a username. That helps when you come back after breaks. WP:OGRE :) --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This ip likely belongs to banned wikivandal Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). please do not edit on his behalf. It is against policy.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You've to prove a pattern to call some one a sockpuppet, otherwise its a personal attack. Be assured I edit on my own behalf. And since (s)he asked to revert edits of a blocked user, the request and action both would be valid. BTW, why is it that all your comments on my talk page go in negative? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Hi. I'm afraid I don't know how to do a range block. If you need one, please try another admin or use WP:AN/I. Another option is to semi-protect your Talk page if the vandalism persists. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting will limit the good faith IP editors from contacting though that will be the last option if it persists. I'll contact an active admin. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

PAF/Pakistan Air Force

Do you have any evidence that Pakistan Air Force represents the primary topic for the acronym PAF? I don't see why it deserves to be the redirect for PAF, as I don't see why the Pakistan Air Force is any more important or common a target for someone search PAF than, say the Philippine Air Force or the Personal Ancestral File. Unless you can show that the Pakistan Air Force is overwhlemingly likely to be what someone is looking for when they type PAF into the search bar, the page moves should be undone. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see as per a few google searches (since those represent the backlinking and the most search queries); Pakistan Air Force: 5,270,000 results, Philippine Air Force: 1,010,000 results, Personal Ancestral File: 2,400,000 results. Pakistan Air Force in Pakistan is mostly referred to as only PAF instead of the full name when ever referred to in English. I created a PAF (disambiguation) page and added a navigation link on the Pakistan Air Force page. I think this will be more useful as a search query, and since a disambiguation exists and is linked, there will be no other issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, those results are good enough for me, thanks. If anyone else objects, we can worry about it then. I'm going to use a slightly different hatnote for clarity. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I guess the one you added now clarifies enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Activities in Balochistan

There was a section of "Activities in Balochistan" in the main article of Inter services intelligence but somehow you don't like it to be added and you have been removing it just because you think its my POV. I don't know whether because you are a proud Pakistani or and under estimator of Human rights.

All of references and sentences provided in that topic are referred from highly reputable sources of HRCP and known Newspapers if you take a deep look on it. You have also constantly asked me to talk on your reverts but you have never talked by yourself on my reverts. This surely shows your proud of being Pakistani!!!.

All of the material in "Activities in Balochistan" section are showing the truth if you know the current affairs and are a true newspaper reader. I look for your cooperation and help if are a true human being. I am again reverting the said section as i do not find any Vandalism or POV in that section.

Thank you!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behrozaltaf (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been reverted by more than 3 editors. Stop editwarring and start discussing. Use article's talkpage. If you keep on reverting, you will end up getting blocked. And stop using multiple accounts, one of your sock has been blocked, another attempt might get you an indefinite block on this ID as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have not yet answered my message?, explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behrozaltaf (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page for this, not mine. So that other editors who reverted you can participate. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and File:Cha1 lrg.jpg#Licensing. utcursch | talk 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Some reference cleanup needed (Indo-Pak conflicts)

Hi,

Since you take pains about the article Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, may I suggest you couch the barebones urls with "cite web" templates. Otherwise having multi-column ref-lists looks ugly. AshLin (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning that. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan-U.S. skirmishes

I see that you are an active editor of Pakistan and military-related topics. The recent section at Pakistan–United States skirmishes needs expansion and I'm looking for some help in this regard, especially since it might be featured on the news section of the main page (see the thread at WP:ITN/C). Please do help improve the content, if you're free or are interested. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sure. I'll edit it every now and then when ever I get to it. The article currently seems a starter, it might do with some dedicated editing. Be free to amend my to do list on my user page if you want me to help with any article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added some details and heavily cited the whole incident which was probably due to get over flowed with tags. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks in a much better state now than the two-liner paragraph before. Mar4d (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Np. Thinking of adding more. Actually this can have a spin off article if more data is available other than these overlapping news reports. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"No consensus to move" vs. "Keep."

I saw you changed my closing of the previous move discussion on 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan. I don't think I agree with that. I figured it'd be more productive to discuss it before trying to change it back. :) The term "keep" is typically used when discussion proposed deletions, not page moves. More importantly, I don't think we had a consensus to keep that title. (In fact, we obviously didn't, as we had consensus to move it to a new title shortly after.) When there is a lack of consensus then a page should not be moved, but that is different from having a consensus not to move, because in the latter case someone should think twice before proposing the move again. Whereas if there is no consensus, they should feel free to reopen the discussion. I also read up on the policy a bit and it seems that move requests should remain open for seven days before closing, though considering we already moved it somewhere else I'm not sure whether we should still apply that here. In short, I think the move proposal closer should read "No consensus." instead of "Keep." Knight of Truth (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, my attempt was to remove a possible misleading interpretation so that a user might not take "no consensus" as a silent consensus. Other wise you are correct, keep is slightly different. But the phrase no consensus has the issue I explained since a silent consensus would mean exactly the opposite of not moving. What about "Consensus on not moving the page"? I expected a revert if you objected and would have left it without another discussion since you were the closing editor and I was a main opposing one (but since the consensus was heavily on oppose I took the change of clarifying). Feel free to fix it your way. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But "consensus on not moving the page" is precisely what I don't think there was. User:L1A1_FAL still opposed, for example. But there seemed to be a consensus that there was no consensus, at least. :p I'm all for a clarification, but "no consensus" or "no consensus reached" sounds best to me. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimous. Even if there is opposition, the consensus is still built on a stronger case generally with more people on the side. When a move is opposed, it would mean that there was consensus on not moving since the suggestion was declined/opposed by consensus. What about referring to another cancelled page move? The consensus seems be clear on not moving the page. Anyway, its completely up to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, tricky. Good one! --lTopGunl (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Barnstar copied to user page. 05:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For working on the article 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Same to you. Please continue developing the article and improving its content with WP:Reliable sources. Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --lTopGunl (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)