User talk:TopGun/Archives/2012/January

Removing POV tags

Just a suggestion: if someone adds a POV tag to an article, and doesn't appear to be making any attempt to discuss, you could try to start the discussion on your own on the talk page. I would not suggest removing problem tags until the other person clearly is not going to discuss it, even after you've made an attempt. Assuming good faith compels us to believe that Darkness Shines believes there is a serious problem with the article but perhaps lacks the time (or energy) to post a proper explanation on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue disputed on talk page was of a section below which already had a tag. I do assume good faith for every one making edits, but this one has a context. Inter-Services Intelligence‎ was tag bombed by the same user (even after I added his edits back myself) and still stays so - and I didn't remove those since the user was repeatedly adding them. This one appeared similar drive by tagging. Even though I removed the tag, I explained it properly in the edit summary, but I'll start a discussion myself next time before removing tags (I have done that on the previous page mentioned too with no result other than "the tags will stay or I'll revert"). --lTopGunl (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Image balance

Got a better idea with photos. See Talk:Pakistan#Using the switch feature for images. Mar4d (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking and replying there. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've tried the switch in my sandbox but it doesn't seem to be working... you might want to test it. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was just about bring this up on Talk:Pakistan. I'm still trying to understand how this function apparently works, and from what I gather, the photos don't necessarily change every time the page is loaded. I just refreshed the India article several times, only to find the same pictures. Whenever I open up the page after a couple of hours or minutes though, then I notice some of the images changing. I think we should ask somewhere as to how frequently the images rotate in this function, maybe at Talk:India. Mar4d (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:India will only be useful if the adding editors are still there. WP:Help desk would be the right place. I'll try checking its values till then. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it changed once in my sandbox. I think it depends on number of loads. Here's the help page. [1] --lTopGunl (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a thread anyway at the Help desk. Let's see what anyone else might have to say about it. Mar4d (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, keeping a tab on that. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol.....just saw the help page you linked. Almost felt like vomiting after trying to read all the complicated alien codes. Mar4d (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just saw the thread at the Help desk. Oh well, something is always better than nothing; it's not like there needs to be a new picture every time the page is loaded, a periodic basis is fine like the way it happens at the Indian article. I'll come up with my viewpoints on what pics are appropriate for the article some time soon. Mar4d (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it will do. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Btw, is it just my mind playing tricks with me, or have you really been online for the past full 24 hours? :o Mar4d (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I have.... :p --lTopGunl (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable!.......gotta give you full credit for your Wikipediholism. Mar4d (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha.... will be busy now for a week so now a few times a day maybe. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looks like I'm going for a second round without a break - just took a look at my freaky contributions list :o --lTopGunl (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird stuff

Resolved: [2] --lTopGunl (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm experiencing some technical issue with the search box. When I put in a search term, I'm not getting any search results for it but just the usual line You may create the page [red link] but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Are you having anything similiar on your computer? Just want to confirm whether it's an issue on my side... Mar4d (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's working fine. By pass your cache (Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R) and then try. Tried any instant search results that drop out? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, not working. Thanks for the tip though; I'll try and see some assistance up at the technical help section of Village pump. Mar4d (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, try help desk as well.. that is more active. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's working again, all good. Mar4d (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cache? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried the keys you mentioned above and deleted my browsing history a couple of times. After a while, it just started working again. I have no idea what really caused the strange behaviour. Mar4d (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Happens with corrupted cache. No worries. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Templates?

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

Why is it not allowed to template your talk page while you appear to think it ok to plaster the mall over mine? And please do not make accusations of edit warring when I have not broken 3RR. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your page is the last place where I'd want to edit... but that was a pre-requisite for AN3, --lTopGunl (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please amend your statement on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 [3][4] The history clearly shows only two reverts against the IP. Either provide diffs or do not post statements which can easily shown to be wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• The same for Separatist movements of India [5][6] There are but two reverts to that article. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I count 4 at 65 war and 3 at separatist movement (inclusive of reverts to anyone other than IP). The admin will be able to count for himself. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the diffs now provided only two reverts per article, you appear to be counting my adding tags as a revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, adding tag is a revert since that was being reverted / objected too. And I don't see a BRD cycle completed anywhere, you just made top on reverts. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding a tag is not a revert. You are also wrong on Inter-Services Intelligence Your diffs do not show reverts, [7] Removing unsourced content is not a revert. [8] Adding new content is not a revert. There is but one revert on the article, which diff I already have pointed out at AN3 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

When your edit is reverted, any edit of yours is considered a further revert. I don't want to continue this debate here... let the admin decide. And you were supposed to stay away from this page. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 1 January 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.

Question you could help answer on the reference desk

Sorry that I've been on your case recently about sourcing. On a completely different note, you might be able to help answer a question over at the reference desk.

You've indicated that you speak Punjabi. Would you mind taking a look at a question on the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Hindi_.26_Punjabi_Names_for_Mount_Everest? Thanks a lot. Buddy431 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TopGun. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AshLin (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Merges

Just to let you know, the Indophobia article and the Pakistan-administered Kashmir article have been closed as merges. I'll wait for you to come back and help carry out the final moves, since I myself am unsure where and how exactly to fit the content. Mar4d (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was online when the topics got closed, but busy for a day or two for the heavy work which merges require. Let's do them on Saturday eve. Btw, Indophobia in Pakistan can directly be dumped into the Pakistan subsection of Indophobia by increasing the header level by one for all headings... there'll be many volunteers from both sides of disputes for the clean up atleast. I'll do it along with the other one otherwise. Even better if you can help then as the Kashmir one would be a bit of blanket merge. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

About your reply to above talk back template... exactly what I had in mind as a reply. That was never objected on content length on its own infact that was already taken itself as undue. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I read that two-way article proposal from you (posted somewhere) and found it reasonably appropriate and compliant with WP:NPOV. Anyways, let's wait till Saturday. Study hard for your exam and don't get too much pre-occupied with WP:Wikistress. Take it easy :) Mar4d (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yeah... I know I posted that at the RFC... I was talking about the situation of the page regarding to NPOV and why it cant be recreated if more text is available (given that it already is). Haha, I was thinking of that before requesting an unblock since it looks like I wont actually be doing any real editing till then anyway (maybe good for the exam) but did it finally since I had some issues with the blocking reasons (though I did editwar to some extent which I accept). Anyway, thanks... easy here :] --lTopGunl (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Usurp on pl wiki

done.Maikking (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Taliban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Now to clarify: you've gone ahead and revert warred on Taliban right after I just blocked Darkness Shines for it. In the idea of keeping everything fair, I had to block your account. Let me explain:

• To any reviewing admins, please note this has happened in a vacuum, but there has been some real acrimony goign on between users with Indian and Pakistani nationalist-POVs recently.
• I've kept the block at 24 hours, to keep it synced with DS's block. I didn't escalate it, because I believe you were abiding by the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BRD moreso than DS.
• You have been edit warring consistently across other articles, and you have two previous blocked so you should know that's not OK.
• And most importantly, I also think DS and JCAla have a decent point that you are quick to revert and slow to come to consensus. I don't see any attempt on your part any more than theirs to come up with a medium ground, a mediation so to speak, where neither side is 100% happy but everyone finds it livable. It takes two to tango.

So please understand why you've been blocked. If you have any questions let me know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1)My revert at Taliban: "07:21, January 5, 2012‎", your block of Darkness Shines: "07:24, January 5, 2012‎" 2) I didn't know that you blocked DS as trivially apparent from last point and I didn't know you were going to. 3)I reverted on BRD, yes this was the second revert but that content addition was inflammatory. 4)You need to see the filibustering at the last section of the article, which was on his part and not mine. 5) See my attempts to come to consensus at the same section mentioned for this edit as compared to other editor who made none other than simply striking off objections unilaterally calling them "not-fit", 6) Question: DS was constantly adding further objectionable content instead of discussing the first part which I did not revert for days so as to not editwar. This was crossing of line for me... so what noticeboard is correct to report that to? (don't tell me DRN when there are no attempts - since I don't consider striking off of objections as discussion - made to discuss). --lTopGunl (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say that I agree with Magog. I've seen you say "Discuss" quite a bit, but only when the article is on your preferred revision. When your block expires, remember the advice you've given to others: there is no WP:DEADLINE. Try enforcing a 1RR on yourself.--v/r - TP 02:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction: not my preferred version, the status quo (which ever that would be). I've been more active than you, JCAla or DS in discussing the content. I will try not to revert so many times so as not to editwar but WP:DEADLINE does not apply on me since he was the one adding content repeatedly instead of waiting for consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "status quo" on Wikipedia. Any article can be changed if there are factual, POV, or other errors. You cannot revert to one that you like and then ask other editors to discuss. You have to get used to biting the bullet for a few days while the discussion happens. If you are right or can convince others and bring it to a consensus you like, then your preferred version will be restored in time. Have patience. WP:DEADLINE applies perfectly and I'd give it another read if I were you.--v/r - TP 15:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think any bold edits when reverted need to be discussed instead of re adding them, not saying that it was him who did that and I did nothing, but what's the purpose of reverting if the other editor is not discussing (unilaterally saying there's no dispute) the topic and adding more content complicating further. The least thing DS could acknowledge was the dispute itself while he claims all along there's no dispute. Why are there reverts if there's no dispute, I'd say... I think I was atleast in right to make him wait for the consensus. I agree that I might have let that version be and discussed... and I did that too. I also requested page protection, Magog declined it. I think it would have prevented all this and that protected version wouldn't have been my preferred version either - I was challenging major additions to it but only reverted when it was further complicating by further additions so that he would wait instead adding more contentious content while previous had issues too. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TopGun/Archives/2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason given for block is invalid since time stamps say the opposite. I did not do it as a reaction to his block since that was done after my edit. My edit as recognized by the blocking admin was in spirit of WP:BRD (I made two reverts). I waited for 2 days and invited the user to discuss before making the reverts. Also I don't take responsibility for acrimony caused by other users, I've always been civil and only reverted on reasonable basis. I know I've editwarred before but not today and I was blocked for that then, other articles where I reverted were similar BRD reverts (yes some times two but removal of any bold edits is correct per BRD. Also note that I requested protection of the page (as the block template itself suggests) which was declined by Magog. Now for blocking me for exactly what I said was going to happen, not due to me but by others as seen (given that I BRD reverted bold edits when they weren't getting consensus), is a reason enough for this appeal. Further, the editwar has already been prevented by blocking the other user and I do not even need to continue since he wont be able to re add the content which I challenged. The preventive purpose of the block per that does not stand per the timestamps given for his block and my revert. Magog has been repeatedly accused by the other side for blocking only them (when they are disruptive) and this seems to be making it "fair" as he suggests but that's not what blocks are for. lTopGunl (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block has already expired. --MuZemike 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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.

Talk:Taliban

Darkness Shines has presented two proposals: one for the lead and one for the body. I think both are reasonable and have thrown my support behind them. I'd like it if you could take a look and give your opinion. If you are supportive, then we can move past both issues. I'd like to engage Darkness Shines, JCAla, and yourself in making Taliban a Good Article. I think we definitely have the coverage and references and it's only MOS issues we'd have to work on and make sure we have a solid WP:NPOV and weight throughout.--v/r - TP 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for informing. I'll check and give my input there. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Allama Iqbal

What's happened to Muhammad Iqbal? Why was it deleted? Mar4d (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines nominated it for speedy deletion as a copy vio of the disna website. I didn't have time to see whether it really was or if disna was free content but the deleting admin, User:Fastily, seems to have reviewed (although he's some times too quick at deleting like separatist movements of India which a vandal tagged for deletion though he restored later). Two experienced editors got on its rewriting/rephrasing (from previous deleted version) as soon as it was deleted. Don't worry about that article... that's the last one to ever get muted anywhere. Maybe even better, now since it is being done on a clean slate we can preempt the MOS like Nato attack article and make it a GA. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back :) Alright. Now just another important thing I'd like to mention (it's about the merges): When you do carry out the merge of the articles, don't forget to link to the closed talk page discussions in your edit summaries. It's necessary for attribution and for the Template:Copied which will need to go on to the talk pages of the articles involved. Could you also give me a brief run-down as to what is the plan and how are we going to carry out the merges (especially the Kashmir article), just so that I have an idea. Mar4d (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :] Yeah, I've done quite a few merges and I follow WP:MERGE for that. Don't worry about the attribution, I'll handle it. How about we start a discussion on the relevant talk page? Always attracts clean up volunteers. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Mar4d (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Aviators who became ace in a day

I have brought this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, Here Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Cite in related section

Hi - there is a report at the BLP noticeboard - just to clear it up would you point to the citation in the related section that supports the content you replaced, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check for the sources. A part of that information is common knowledge and attributed by other sources. The part about being born in East Pakistan and shifted is also correct but I'll see if I can find a source. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" to "Azad Kashmir"

Good job with the merging. Nice to see the work finally done without further lingering. On another note, I was just going through the history of that page (Pakistan-administered Kashmir) and saw that it was created in March 2004. It's survived for eight long years :) Amazed at the wonders that a consensus can do on Wikipedia; credit goes to you. Mar4d (talk)

Thanks! Yeah, I guess previous editors were not much experienced in dispute resolution procedures. I reviewed most of the history and talk page discussions before nominating it. There was a lot contention on the article name with Indian nationals claiming that it shouldn't be "Azad Kashmir", Pakistanis on the stand of its local and administrative name, and saw some neutral editor's comments that People's Liberation Army might not be called "Peoples occupation army" if Tibet nationals object to it on the wiki, lol. I think this one was created for the purpose of keeping that name and killing the administrative name comment. Even confused me on keeping the article till I reviewed all the history (and I bet you too, given your initial comments on the confusion it created). I'm surprised myself how it survived for that long. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I was skeptical when you first told me about the proposal, keeping in mind the article history. But I can see now that it was a quite practical thing to do and works out reasonably well (and as we noticed, some of the content was forked anyway). Mar4d (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. Most of it was forked as I saw it. I had to dump full sections into those articles. LoC for example didn't have that content in its own article. Time to clean up the next one (Indophobia) now since AshLin has completed the merge. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Indophobia Mergal

I am not sure how to merge that article with Indophobia a consensus has been reached to merge it however 86.182.220.73 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it, AshLin has also volunteered for the merger. No worries. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Taliban

RE your message from TP about bringing the article up to GA status. I began rewriting the section on the economy,[9] JCAla has also begun to contribute, your participation would be appreciated, if only to offer advice. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Indians in Afghanistan

Don't edit that article yet, let's wait for the comments on AfD and see how it goes. I think we're heading towards a point of no return and the only solution is in fact deleting it now. Mar4d (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Indian pov pusher Jcala has been adding pov sentences to lead I advise adding RAW and its terrorist activities in the lead also to counterbalance the indian pov push 86.181.135.97 (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think Magog's advice was good, simply revert everything to the last good version, every one else, esp. those who made additions would be then bound to only add after a discussion which will automatically handle the issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Taliban (tag)

[10] I believe it is meant to go at the top of the RFC. But why even add it? There has been no socking there that I can see? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just in case... there's no harm in adding. If you want to shift it to top of RFC I'm fine by that, but every topic there needs that in my opinion. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at.

• Please take a look at Mohammad Iqbal,did I right?,one section I have to add but it shoul be first clean-up,may you help.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. Its fully restored... have you reverted to the version prior to deletion or are you adding content here from that version? I'll review and clean up soon. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC).

• Not yet, please do it.Later I will check the whole article completely,your assistance is needed.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Seems like a detailed work. I'm also helping with Pakistan for a drive to make it a featured article, so I won't be able to treat this as a major project till that is done but I'll surely do the clean ups. Will review for clean up/copy edit soon. Feel free to tell me if there's something specific needed. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Expert Advice needed

I need some help with regard to Wikipedia editing. I would appreciate if you could reach me on sachaudhary@gmail.com ----Shakil Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakil Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 08:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert really but per some of your edits I've recently seen, you need to follow WP:MOS and avoid messing up the good formatting while copy editing. Many of your edits contain some really good copy editing along with format mess ups or bad rephrases all in a single edit. This makes it really hard to revert and keep the good ones. Consider editing in parts. Also it's good practice to give reliable sources (not from wikipedia itself) and keep the wikilinks in the articles. Feel free to ask me here if you need help in something specific. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks~!

• For reverting the wrongful accusation on my talk page, have a great weekend~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, you too. :] --lTopGunl (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History introduction

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Time for a closure

I guess it's time to close the discussion on Indian Subcontinent. This is heading nowhere. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right... but most oppose comments are coming with reasons that base on citations not provided alongside. And we do have more comments coming surprisingly on both sides, may be we should wait for a few days and then add it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. And, I also believe we can get back to the issue after more research. I already have done some, but not enough to get through "I like it" voters, some of them pretty adept at process. Only one thing works surely in these situations - solid research. Often good argument doesn't work until voiced by scores of experienced editors. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually seeing that a recent opposing editor misunderstood our arguments as denying that "Indian subcontinent" was a valid name and all the other comments there, no opposing case has been presented other than unsourced assertions and consensus is not a majority vote - per that this might even come to a merge. I'm now thinking of taking it to WP:DRN if there's no consensus formed here but it'll be a good idea to have some comments from unrelated editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that essentially nobody is arguing that South Asia and Indian Subcontinent are the same, and essentially the only argument against a merger is that Indian Plate and Indian Subcontinent are the same. Very disappointing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's called WP:SYNTH and is completely invalid in this context. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a quite good faith stand in believe of a supposed common knowledge - Indian Subcontinent is such a prevalent term that it definitely needs a separate article. That is why we have such divergent claims without verification - Indian Subcontinent is a geographical term distinctly different from South Asia, a geophysical term, a geological term and so on. The only argument that would have been verifiable and reliable while being sensible is that it is a historic term and needs an article for that purpose (Indosphere has been a somewhat similar case). But, no one is making an argument in that line. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If we would be creating an article for an historic term for its own notability - it might be fine under that argument - but then in that case we'll be treating that article as an article for that term and not the region in essence (though it would still mention the context and all). But I think that will be more in context when in a single article. Also that usually happens when the parent article is too long for all the content, other wise the term can be significantly covered in the same article with a dedicated section. Actually I am open to good arguments but the oppose comments are unsourced or on bases which can themselves be disputed. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request for review and arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JCAla (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Will reply there if the case is accepted. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A humble request

Hi there. I just added some additional refs to the article Afghans in Pakistan. If you have time, could you use that reflinks tool to format them (and possibly other citations that require formatting too)? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I ran the tool on it, but there were no bare references for it to fix. It only fixes bare references, so those added in [http://xyz.com References title] format are not formatted. I'll try removing those making them bare URLs and then re-running it there in few minutes. You can always use the tool your self as well from WP:REFLINKS. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Removing the bracket formatting and then running the tool on bare URLs worked. Almost all the citations are now in good format but a few weren't caught by the tool, you might want to fix those manually. I'll advise simply adding bare URLs when you are working with multiple references and then running WP:REFLINKS on the article in the end. Saves alot of work. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fixed the rest too. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks alot. Mar4d (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pak peer review

The following discussion 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.

---

Do you suppose I should close the peer review now? I doubt Casliber is going to comment, he probably forgot. Also have a look at the comments given while you were busy. I tried to deal with most of the problems but see if you could help with the remaining; particularly with his suggestion about removing formation from infobox and where do you suppose our being middle power can be inserted in the body of the article from lead. Plus just a head up, 'middle power' is going to be challenged at the FA review because it can be debated. September88 (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should close the review after all the current issues have been handled. I'll review the article for the comments you mentioned and get back to you about that on the article talk. About middle power, if we have citations of reliable sources (academic work esp) it can stay regardless of how much it can be debated on. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

About formation, I don't think it's a good idea to remove it. There's no set of rules for an article to be a featured article and I think we can very well defend this part in the FAC (Pakistan Declaration in specific was when the word Pakistan was coined and much of the concept was further clarified). Infact I'm adding Conception of Pakistan to it as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Its fine. September88 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The peer review got archived by a bot, did you get it to do it or was that automatic? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It was automatic. September88 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well timed then. Lol. I think we should continue to FAC in a few days if there's nothing specific left. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think the article require a through copy-edit before we proceed? Preferably by someone new, just to further make it perfect. I notice that requests at copy-edit guilt aren't picked up, so if you have someone specific in mind who can do it? September88 (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved the discussion to Pakistan Talk page. September88 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess fresh eyes would do some good but a better idea would be to ask some active user on the talk page instead of a low traffic noticeboard like the guild's. I recommend some one impartial to the subject reviews the language so I guess (interested) people I know wont really come in that range. I've replied at the article talk for continued discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:42, 21 January 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.

Stop it

Hounding: Blocked by User:Magog the Ogre‎
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Original post: [11] --lTopGunl (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC) In response to your rather rude note one my talk page, I am not hounding you. [12] I went to look at that RFC, which you seem to have refactored BTW, is that not against policy?. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) That actually is hounding (or rather stalking if you went through that way). And no, it is per WP:RFC and it is not your business. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Interesting theory, an RFC is none of my business. By it's very nature an RFC is everyone's business :o) It also amuses me that you constantly accuse myself of canvassing, yet you have done just that but complain when another editor goes to look at the RFC. Go tell it to the frogs. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, there's no RFC started yet and you followed my edits. I only informed reverting editors, that is not even near canvasing. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Foodistan

Hello there,

I have started creating an article at Foodistan. I would appreciate if you and other editors could help increase the content of the article.

Many Thanks.

--Rvd4life (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look when free. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkbacks

Thanks. Will respond as soon as I get an hour's quiet time or so, probably tonight, latest tomorrow, AshLin (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Take your time. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your report at AIV on 1.186.11.213, 1.186.11.202, and 1.186.11.231

I can't find any trace of the user page edit you refer to or any editing at all by 1.186.11.202 or 1.186.11.231. I assume that a bureaucrat has oversighted the edits in question. If so, perhaps you could remove the AIV report, if it hasn't already gone by the time you read this. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like that because an administrator deleted the edit but the edit summary is still visible which constitutes the same. Please see the edit on "01:33, January 25, 2012‎" at [13] which is the 8th last edit at the moment and is still there. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's something strange going on. When I look at the edit history of the page, the last 8 edits show up as follows:

08:42, 26 January 2012‎ TopGun

21:05, 24 January 2012‎ TParis

21:05, 24 January 2012‎ TParis

20:55, 24 January 2012‎ TopGun

20:53, 24 January 2012‎ 1.186.9.102

20:38, 24 January 2012‎ TopGun

20:35, 24 January 2012‎ Klilidiplomus

20:33, 24 January 2012‎ 1.186.9.231

No sign of anything at 01:33, January 25, 2012. However, I've deleted the edit summary from the 8th last edit. Has that done what you wanted? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I could see the edit summary (actually all those edits had summaries).. may be some bug at your side? Yes, it is deleted. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit summary was perfectly visible until I deleted it. The problem was that the timestamp I saw was completely different from the one you quoted, which confused me. Maybe that was some sort of bug, but as long as it's dealt with now, it should be OK. Were 1.186.11.202 and 1.186.11.231 by any chance typos for 1.186.9.102 and 1.186.9.231? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes the IPs were 9.102, 9.231, 11.213 and 11.67. My bad if I put some onto the other subnet. The user was vandalizing TParis's userpage and started to do mine too on revert with IP hops. I don't know if I'll have to ask for range block or an increased semi protection? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• It has just occurred to me, have you by any chance got your preferences set to show times in your local time instead of UTC? That would explain the problem if you are 5 hours east of Greenwich. If that is the cause of the problem, you may like to watch out for the same thing in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, you caught it. My bad! Will keep that in mind in future. But I guess the edit-summary was still showing? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions?.

• Please take a look at Muhammad Iqbal,though I am still busy to expand and improve the article,any suggestions will encourage me to further improvement.There is some awkward kind of minor problem,may you see on the talk page.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I previously rebutted those edits. I think you might need to take the user to WP:WQA. Can you summarize in short what is the content issue here now? - my previous comment was on the content in general. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nolelover has replied him,I actually do not understand him that what he wants to say.He even does not know what is the meaning of Knighted and was persist to pressure me for reference that Iqbal has the title of Sir,and so on kind of things.Anyhow,Nolelover is dealing with him.I am still busy to expand and improve the article,it will take time to final touches.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he might be trying to make good faith additions. I'll stick around to make clarifications. A good idea will be to simply tell him that you are only improving on the language of his additions so that he agrees with you as there's seemingly not a real content dispute here. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)