User talk:TopGun/Archives/2012/May

Malik Ata Muhammad

brother hope u will be in the best.I have created page about Pakistan's well known personality Malik Ata Muhammad Khan.please check this page given same name.Actually i haven't some basic information about his i-e date of birth but the information I got,have put on the page.Now i am facing an interesting situation.A person "Doddy Wuid" has changed the information I have provided.i appreciate his work but besides this he has deleted some rare information about Malik Sahab.Actually there is not exact source of "One man and his horse" a BBC documentary about Malik Ata.I think BBC has removed it from their website but its uploaded by a man on youtube.And their is a tag A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2012)' is mentioned on the page.I think it shows that I am biased about this man.But actually its wrong.I am a neutral man and don't want favour any body.I haven't any relations with Malik Ata and I am fully confident about the information I have provided.The thing is that Malik Ata has some rare qualities and there's need to write them on the page.We should consider it as bragging.But I am surprised 6,7 lines have been removed by that brother.So I request you to please check it and tell me what should I do in this regard..thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik amin khan (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, while I take a look at your dispute, please read WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BRD and especially WP:Reliable Sources just in case you didn't know about these. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look... the user seems to have given reasonable explanations for what he removed. Now I know that you want to contest that (keeping in mind that information on wikipedia that does not have reliable sources can be removed per no original research policy - facebook is not one of them, a documentary is if correctly attributed), so you should discuss that on talkpage of that article presenting your sources. I can facilitate that discussion to help you as you are not aware of all the policies (which is OK). Feel free to ask me anything that needs clarification. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker recounting fresh memories) You know what, this person looked very familiar to me when I opened up the article. Just now, I realise that he played a prominent role in Alpha Bravo Charlie. Lol! Mar4d (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! I didn't know that he was a real life character before this :p --lTopGunl (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

hello brother sorry for that if u feel guilty but i was in mood to discuss this matter with u as like two brothers frankly discuss each others. I have put source of youtube video of "One man and his horse".although not a valid source but i think BBC has removed it from the website as it is very old.Please check and guide towards further step..thanks...regards Malik amin khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik amin khan (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I don't feel guilty because I'm not even involved in the dispute. I'm trying to help you understand the policies so that you can make your point better in your dispute. Frankly discussing content is better than editwarring, you should try that approach. Youtube in itself is not a reliable or non reliable source, rather it depends on who has published the video on Youtube. If it is from a BBC or another news source channel or properly attributed to one then it is reliable. Also, you don't need online sources - using offline sources is allowed per WP:SOURCEACCESS... even if BBC has removed it, they did publish it once and it must be else where in their archives or available offline. So you can still use the source, but you will have to give information such as date it was published and author etc so that other users who might have access to the information can verify it. Please discuss this and present your arguments / sources on that article's talk page as that is the right venue for content discussion and the user who reverted you will be able to respond there. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Power Home Remodeling Group

Hi TopGun,
Sorry for disturbing. I recently created an article and published it, but within 10 minutes of its publish time, it got nominated for deletion. Though it completely satisfies WP:GNG, but still the nominator of the article is saying that it does not fulfill the criteria as the policy is weak for companies. You can see the discussion and help me if it abides by the policies.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 21:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've checked... the article seems to be well sourced. Dropped my input and some explanation to the nominator. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Really appreciate your input.
I was thinking to do some work on Muhammad Ali Jinnah and get it a FA status or Good article atleast. I have a lot of published books on Pakistan and Quaid-e-Azam in my father's library. I was recently checking the user page of an administrator User:Wehwalt. I think he has made contributions to FA more then anyone I have come across. I talked with him and he has agreed to help and guide me if I can get a lot of references.
I would love to have Pakistan also in the same category but there is a lot of mess there so too many cooks spoil the broth. That is why I tend to stay away from it. So I would be needing your help also as you have also got one article to a good article status(if it's okay with you). Once I start working on it, I will notify you if you like.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 13:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was planning the same.. but there was a recent editwar on that article so I am waiting for it to be stale. I don't have any problem jumping into controversial topics, but I'm getting a little less time to edit wikipedia nowadays. I only revert vandalism and keep a check on current disputes. I'll still be glad to help you in any way even in on and off basis. I also have a book or two from which I had planned to update this article. So count me in. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I noted that the page got blocked from editing for two or three days while I was taking a look at it. Sure I'll count you in and will let you know once I start working on it. In the mean while, I am looking for the books written by most notable authors and will mark all the necessary things. Will let you know every update to the article and hopefully when we finish it, I'll ask User:Wehwalt to review it and guide us if the article still needs any more improvements.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 14:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Good then. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
I asked the admin to take a look at the article of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He has given some guidelines. You can see them at my talk page. I will start working on them in a day or two and will update you on every major change that I make so that you can also guide me.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 19:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Took a read. Looks like you're all set. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi TG,
Any idea or reference on Quaid's first wife? Just came across this link. I am looking for the details in the books I have. Thought you might have any idea of it?
Secondly there were a lot of citation tags added on the page. I have provided references for I think 50-60% of them and still working on the rest. Also added a picture in center Founding of Pakistan. Just wanted to update you.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 11:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The book I have is about the professional life mostly so I doubt that I'll be able to find that, but I can take a look... I'll add if I find related info. Also, keep your sources well attributed so that your edits are not slowed down by disputes. Thanks for updating... I'm keeping the article on my watchlist and will keep a check. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think I should now just stick to the books rather then online sources to avoid editing conflicts and stuff.
Damn I hate disputes.
Thanks for the warning though.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 14:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

News sources are good too. I've seen articles often getting published when ever some discussion comes into buzz. That helps in disputes some times. Just be a little strict your self on RS so that you don't get irritated later by some one else removing it. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, from now on I'll try to stick to books as they cannot be challenged.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 15:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Found many references in an encyclopedia named "Encyclopedia Pakistanica" by Syed Qasim Mehmood. And yeah Muhammad Ali Jinnah married twice. It is mentioned that 1 year before going to England he married his cousin "Ami Bai" who died while he was in England. Also a lot more references in "Encyclopedia Quaid-e-Azam" by Zahid Hussain Anjum. I'll add them tomorrow when I find some time.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 18:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. Ok. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

Apologies for the delay. We are ready to go now. Please join the discussion of the issues on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

{{tb|User_talk:Mar4d#Happy_Birthday.21}} Mar4d (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! SMS & Mar4d. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy birthday my friend!! Hope that you enjoyed. And I needed a lot of help from you guys topgun, sms and mar4d. I'll ping you tomorrow. :) Yasht101 14:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! A bit busy nowadays, but will do what ever I can. :] --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Thought of going for it? Yasht101 12:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah... lol, didn't think of going for one yet. Too much mess go to around, you might have seen... --lTopGunl (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. Few conflicts, but good candidate. Can I nominate topgun ? Yasht

101 12:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll be glad to be one, especially since I haven't seen any at Wikiproject Pakistan or any one from the region who would have a better understanding of the conduct disputes and editwars etc (but whether the right time is now, I'm not sure)... I'll disclose that I have a 1RR restriction which was placed on me after presumed baiting. I did not acknowledge it as it was placed by a single admin, this was later endorsed by ANI so I accepted it and an IBAN (which I asked for myself) - ofcourse I've never violated both so I don't think there's anything on my conduct record. Maybe you should ask one of the involved admins for an advise on this? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good call not falling for that topgun ... beware of "friends" who suggest the cesspool that is RFA. One thing that would hold you in good stead for it in a couple of years would be figuring out some way to resolve any interaction bans - certainly wouldn't have a successful RFA with them in place. The tough part - how do you resolve them if you cannot interact? Thank that one through - and if you figure it out, what a huge benefit it would be? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I asked for the IBAN, I know the IBAN seems to put the issues under the carpet but I made my point at that thread why there needed to be one and would rather have it kept this way whether I go for an RFA now or later or not at all. I think an RFA can still proceed with one in place - just the way existing admins still do get blocks and restrictions. As far RFA for me is concerned the mess that is going around the topic area is something that to be considered. You are right about RFA being a cesspool pulling out conflicts and disputes even though I do know much about DR and policies by now - with WP:AGF on both your and Yasht's part. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey

It wasn't the RfA for which I wanted to write something here.

Actually I was thinking to nominate Pakistan for GA status. Perhaps needed your help as I m already busy with 5 more articles to be nominated in future and you might be having more knowledge of the country then me obviously. Your help will be really valuable. Yasht101 13:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We've been working for that to be FA since December, it's above GA at the moment... just got a copy edit, but I think it's better to go for FA directly as that is what was aspired. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I also wanted an FA. I have few things on the article that I can improve so will be doing it. I thought that articles cannot be directly made FA. But there is no problem that I see in that. Probably by the end of this week, on 13 or 14, we can nominate it. Yasht101 13:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it just failed an FA last month, we're working on the problems pointed out there. It's going a bit slow but I think you can't nominate for 3 months atleast, after an FA fails. We should probably take a little more time since now it is filled with disputes. Didn't get how an RFA and a GA/FA are could relate though. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I still belive that we should go for GA. Anyways, I m cool with that. I'll just do my work and improve till some extend. Yasht101 13:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Going for GA is not bad, you can nominate if you would like. I think it is in good shape. My point was, since it has to go for FA anyway so.. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Defence day: Change of guard at Mazar e Quaid

Actually, each academy of Pakistan Armed Forces has a national day reserved for taking charge on Mazar-e-Quaid. This goes like this:

• Independence Day (14 August) Pakistan Naval Academy (2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007)
• Defence Day (6 September) Pakistan Air Force Academy (2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006)
• Quaid's Birthday (25 December) Pakistan Military Academy (2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006)

Apart from this the local commanders of all the three forces also pay a visit. And I don't know about Pakistan Day, but I was sure and have observed PAFA and PMA doing this on these specific days for years and now about the PNA too. Besides none of these academies' cadets actually stand guard there, they are replaced by the respective force stationed locally after the ceremony, like PAFA cadets are replaced by Ground Combateers of PAF. --SMS ^Talk 13:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of the change of guard (but didn't know if these days were specific)... hence my edit from "Air force" to "Armed Forces". My version is better suited for Mazar-e-Quaid. Self reverted. Thanks for informing. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:TopGun/Noticeboard references

User:TopGun/Noticeboard references, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TopGun/Noticeboard references and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TopGun/Noticeboard references during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

thanks mate! i owe you a beer.  altetendekrabbe  14:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't drink, but thanks anyway and no problem :] - (what a waste of beer you'd say). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

you know, there are many kinds of beer out here, including non-alcoholic :D.-- altetendekrabbe  14:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, didn't know that :D ...that would just be a soft drink then, wouldn't it... :p --lTopGunl (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Perhaps you might be talking about ginger beer.... I never tried it until I actually found out it's a soft drink :D Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

:D --lTopGunl (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

nah, a beer is beer, even without the alcohol. these guys, Murree Brewery, have two kinds, "cindy" and "malt-79", lol.-- altetendekrabbe  14:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you gave me some stuff to read on now, lol. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Help desk post

Hey TopGun. Just following-up on the unresolved information aspect of your help desk post: when you add a speedy templates to a .css or .js the template does not show up but the category works fine, thus listing the page at CAT:CSD where 99% of all deletion are sourced from, as well as the specific subcategory (here it was Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That was helpful, I'll know next time to simply add the template. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be valuable here

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed significantly since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, I don't edit that article, and never will... the day I do I'll probably get blocked. That article is the height of double standards where NPOV is just a pretext. I've self imposed a topic ban for that article so as to not be a party to it instead of not editing Wikipedia at all. I do however find it essential to say that I agree with your point about the actual belief being placed in a footnote and giving the current view which is blatantly against NPOV. You can cite my comment there if you want. Comments on talk pages can still be cited elsewhere to point out community consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing 3(b)

Hello TopGun. I think it would be helpful if you could identify what source you would use for Pakistan government denial of support for the Taliban pre-2001. 3(b) was quite a generous compromise, in my view, and I don't want to push you further, but one can hardly ignore sources like B. Bhutto, Musharraf and Nasrullah Babar unless there are balancing sources for the denials. Sorry if they have already been given, but if so I've overlooked them. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I already gave two sources in my !vote which attribute Pakistan as denying of providing any support ever. Those sources about individuals are not very clear or scandal statements in my opinion. The ones I gave attribute the denial to official stance. Please recheck. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are fine indeed. --Stfg (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:UP#GAMES

Hey there. I'm not exactly sure how I got to your talk page but, que sera sera, eh? I just wanted to let you know that Games, such as User:TopGun/chess have been determined by consensus to be inappropriate for userspace. I ask that you save the community some time by placing a {{db-userreq}} tag on that page. Otherwise, I feel I will have to list it at WP:MFD, where it will most certainly be deleted by discussion. Thank you, Achowat (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Please read this, it has been discussed before and has been considered appropriate quite a few times actually. It is not likely that it will get deleted at MfD either per WP:SNOW as that discussion has taken place at Mfd for other chess pages in user space and they were speedily kept. If you still want to nominate it, I can not stop you from that, but that will actually be a wastage of community's time. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Linking to those discussions (and the discussions linked in those discussions) was very helpful. Thank you. Seeing how prevalent these games seem to be, I would imagine that MFD is too small a venue for that discussion. While I still believe them to be inappropriate, I'm going to take a few hours and really think about the best course of action to take, if any. I'll keep you posted on any discussion that is opened up in this regard. Cheers! (Oh, and thank you for responding as civily as you have) Achowat (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I think anything that helps community interact better and get a better working environment between users is constructive. I guess you will have to take the matter up as a whole if you still disagree. Sorry for the edit conflict, thought it would be better to give a detailed reply instead of repeated question and answers. Thanks for asking me on my talk page first. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My issue, honestly, isn't with the chess; it's with saying that "Chess is Okay" but "Secret Pages/Mazes/etc are not Okay". Though, given how short every conversation about this issue has been, it might have a very high ration of "Time Wastage":"Usefulnessity". Achowat (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's why a good idea would be to hold a community wide discussion as MfDs have already spoken, though ironically that would be killing a bee with a gun too... but if according to your judgement a discussion is due, then try the village pump. I think it depends on how it is being used. When regulars do it, it only helps them to take off the wiki-stress that comes with working on the disputes. I wouldn't nominate a maze in some one's user space either if that's not the only page they've created or worked on in a long time. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted block II

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.

---

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring on the WP:AN/3RR report related to you; calling the other party a WP:SOCK without proof, and using it to justify your actions. 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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Oh come on! I have not editwarred at the notice board, I only "hat"ed the comment by the IP which was actually an accusation on the guy I was reporting (assume some good faith there), and then I reverted JCAla once and left him to it when he still objected on me "hat"ing his reply along with the IP. The second revert was a revert of unambiguous sock which even JCAla agreed (and endorsed) was of a banned user Lagoo Sab. Reverting banned users is an exemption you should know. SPI was useless as they do not reveal IP addresses. This block can not certainly prevent me from editing there as that thing is closed now. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:30 am, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Looks like TopGun's revert was made in good faith, especially considering the nature of the comments made by the IP. TG, rather than reverting, or even putting a hatnote at 3RR, you may want to ping an admin instead. regentspark (comment) 15:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There's been a fundamental mistake here on part of the blocking admin. That IP is a definite sock of Lagoo sab, I can testify 110%. Admin, feel free to CU right away. The IP was trolling and making irrelevant personal attacks at the AN3 report. TG rightly reverted, there's no reason for blocking him in this case. I would have done the same. Mar4d (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for endorsing this. I am not aware of administrators who have actually dealt with LS, may be you can inform one of those (Magog maybe?) so that this can be confirmed. I'm sure reverting a banned user is definitely an exemption. Not nearly an edit war or an improper "calling of 'sock'". --lTopGunl (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Give the 3RR reviewing admin a little credit for being able to view such socking themselves. Hiding/hatting and reverting is improper there no matter what. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Improper, maybe... and then I left it alone, but editwar - certainly not. He is a banned user. Not a blockable offense. You could have simply asked me to let the IPs do whatever they want. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You added it. They removed your hat. You re-added = an edit-war. Not sure how that isn't obvious to you by now, regardless of how improper hatting was in the first place. Protecting the "case" became the necessity (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I introduced something - they objected... I made a single revert to JCAla and let it be. I did how ever revert the banned user clearly explaining it. Infact you should actually realize that he is a banned user when both the reported and the reporter agree on it (something that rarely happens). And JCAla has been dealing with his sockpuppets since long. It doesn't take much to recognize LS. Reverting banned users is no offense in my opinion. If you asked me to let it be for the sake of stability, I would have done that (something which I already did... I didn't revert after he hopped IPs and did it again). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I have to say I found the hatting a very reasonable thing to do when I saw it. Given the fact that the report had lingered without admin attention for days, and was in constant danger of being sidelined into yet more unproductive bickering, trying to neutralize this particularly unproductive part seemed like a sensible thing to do – especially since both main opponents agreed on this, and what TopGun was removing was ostensibly written in his own favour (i.e. against his opponent). And the fact that the IP was a sock really was quite obvious enough to make a good faith invocation of the 3R exception legitimate. On the other hand I'm not quite sure about the 1RR block against ICAla either, because in fairness to ICAla I really do not see how his second edit was a revert. (But I'm saying this as somebody who believes ICAla deserves all sorts of blocks for other reasons anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

JCAla's second edit amended the same content as I explained there in detail. Anyway, that's what I'm saying... the "hat"ing was in good faith to the noticeboard even though it was collapsing content against the person I reported. The block is ironic. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked you based on the nature of the revert and the comments made here and on an assumption of good faith. TG, you're on thin ground here. I suggest you ping an admin with a request to take a look at potential socks or to make reverts on an AN page of any sort rather than taking action yourself. --regentspark (comment) 15:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that the next time (actually I already did it if you see on that very report, I requested that an admin hats unrelated stuff - though I agree I reverted the IP once). Don't think there's any ambiguity though when everyone involved says it is a sock - that would effectively by pass the exemption on reverting a banned user. I bet JCAla would have put the hat back on the sock's comment too. I don't think I have a reputation of disrupting administrative noticeboards reverting people's comments even if Bwilkins didn't assume good faith on my part. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Err, yes, you do have significant history of disrupting admin noticeboards actually - hence the block. You'll also need to AGF as you discuss AGF. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, show me where I reverted, hatted and blanked comments on noticeboard. It is telling that you make this about the reports you didn't agree with as that has nothing to do with disruption. I remember you saying that an IP calling me "the most notorious editor on the wiki" was not a personal attack... and now reverting a banned user gets disruptive? I can't assume anything when you block me from editing and the credit goes to a banned editor. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's your own good faith? My response was to your FIRST version of the above post - you've changed it twice since, thus making my statement different. You're unblocked, and I'm assured by your statements that you won't disrupt anywhere in a similar fashion. Drop the WP:STICK. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know you were editing as fast as me and getting editconflicts. So that change wasn't intentional. My reply is in context for the first version too anyway. I am well aware of why a noticeboard might get disrupted by a revert such as this, but the revert itself was to avoid disruption by the sock. I get what Regentspark said all I have left to say is you should take a closer look when socks are involved. The thing I should think about the case not being over at my unblock is that you still think it was disruption when everyone except you says otherwise including two admins... but I'll leave it here. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You got to be kidding me. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Autoblock removed. It's a silly feature; these autoblocks happen all the time. Not the admins' fault. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's ok. Maybe propose at village pump to update the software so that it removes autoblocks along with unblocking unless specified. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 19 May 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.

Trout award~!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

• I hereby award you... the trout~! Have a great weekend, stop what you're doing here... go out and have fun~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol!! It's over now. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle

Whoa... ... Lol. By the way, I was here to put a talkback.... I've just discovered something else on Twinkle, not sure if you might be aware of it... Mar4d (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-English title, it has been moved now I think. Replied on your talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol.... talking about non-English titles, you probably haven't yet seen my all time favourite.. Tetaumatawhakatangihangakoauaotamateaurehaeaturipukapihimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuaakitanarahu.... even spell checker doesn't work on this one. Rofl :D Mar4d (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh damn, isn't there a common name for it? :o ...move to "Taumata" probably. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you probably also haven't tried Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­parao­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon yet. Check it out, it's delicious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I don't know people would learn to pronounce that. Or even find that article on Wikipedia (redirects, yes). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Shahhh

Just a note: I did block User:Shahhh, but not for vandalism. In fact, I don't think any of Shahhh's edits were vandalism. Note that, per WP:VANDAL, POV-pushing, even when extreme, doesn't count as vandalism. Nonetheless, you were definitely right that the person needed a block; I blocked xyr for 72 hours; feel free to let me know if it resumes after that. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted some of his edits without labeling them as vandalism, but many were obvious factual errors such as changing text of Balochistan region to Balochistan province, why would any one do that with any POV... and then blankings... atleast parts of it seemed like obvious vandalism to me - disruptive all the same. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he's trying to claim that Balochistan belongs entirely to Pakistan. That seemed to me to be what the thrust of all of their edits were. But, perhaps it was just random vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I pointed out on his talk page, the difference... I being from Pakistan, am not aware of such claims from even Pakistan's POV. So I think it was just vandalism. Anyway, there was no justification for removing provincial emblems from province articles and putting Pakistani flagicon on top of all provinces, cities etc. The 'conquest' popped up on so many articles on my watch list, faster than one can drop warnings. Will keep an eye out after the block expires. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Flags

If you checkout any city of India or United Kingdom- you will never find any other flag but their own country flag. This is pathetic that Pakistani cities and separate flags to their singular country flag. You need to take this in notice and act upon it! Mind it if you are a true Pakistani- then you should use a single Pakistani flag on all the Wikipedia material related to Pakistani cities. Thankyou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedjafferi (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Show me which article are you talking about which contains a flag on top of the infobox, it should be removed from them too in my opinion. If it has to be included, it should be included where the infobox mentions that the city or province belongs to Pakistan, not just on the top (this one probably seems reasonable [1]). Also see my reply above to your removal of emblems and changing information in the geographical region article of Balochistan as if it was the administrative province of Balochistan. If you're not aware, the provincial flags also belong to Pakistan and are not ethnic or something. You need to discuss when your edits get reverted on the article talk page and then continue instead of repeatedly reverting edits. Using multiple accounts is prohibited on Wikipedia, esp. for evading a block. Place {{unblock}} along with your explanation on your original account's talkpage to get unblocked instead of evading the block. You can start editing constructively once you understand that you have to work collaboratively with other editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I blocked this second account. I did not revert the edits, because I'm not certain if they are correct or not; I'll leave that up to you. Hopefully this time the person gets the message. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I explained to him above, they were better than before (I didn't feel the need to revert either). I think he's starting to get the point. I'll explain to him in more detail how to go about it or implement the change he wants - if he wants to put it back again. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello TG

I never did figure out your chess game - you seem to be doing fine without me. I have an issue for which I am seeking some Pakistani input. It is neither political nor religious, it is about architectural sculpture. I received an email from someone purporting to be a Pakistani university student. asking for assistance on some project. I would like to share the email with you to, if you wish, get your impressions. I thought that there might be an email link to you here, bt have not found it. I can be emailed at eeklon at yahoo dot com, or I could just post the message I received here. SInce it is not a wikipedia related thing I am reluctant to do so without your approval. Hope to hear from you one way or another. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you can still have a try at that.. I fixed one of your previous moves. About the email, I don't have much knowledge about architectural sculpture in general, but I can refer you to some one else if I don't know the answer. the "E-mail this user" link (in the toolbox section) is enabled, so you can email me. If you can't find it, click here to email me (you must have a verified email address listed in your preferences for this). Better not to paste it here as you might violate WP:OUTING inadvertently. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar by Ntemur copied to user page. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I like your contribution on Wikipedia... I am also supporter of Kashmir and think Kashmir should be the part of Pakistan. Naeem Temur 10:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation Naeem. PS. the last part is my personal view. We try to maintain a neutral point of view on the wiki - but still working on the coverage on Pakistan related topics mostly. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered

.... that there is a Pakistan in India and a Hindustan in Pakistan? Just had a kind of eureka moment right then and couldn't contain my excitement. Lol. Congrats for the barnstar by the way :) Mar4d (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Yeah I knew about the first one... not surprised at the second either :] ...the good thing is that they've been named such by the "rival" communities in respect of the other. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yea, now I can brag to all my Indian classmates at uni that "Hindustan is part of Pakistan". Rofl Mar4d (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

They some times refer to the Indian subcontinent as Hindustan... keep that in mind too... though in my opinion the partition has really mingled the naming. Hindustan is known by India / Hindustan / etc due to Indus, which is ironically in Pakistan. Republic of India's retention of its colonial and historical names confuses many editors into thinking that prehistoric heritage of the subcontinent only belongs to Republic of India, that confusion causes many silly POV issues around the history articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright, copy and pasting

Hi TopGun. This edit[2] is almost a copyright infringement. When quoting an external source, please note to put it in quotation marks if there is a need to copy it verbatim; if there is not such a need, it's better to avoid the copy/paste buttons altogether. In this case, it doesn't constitute infringement because it's only one sentence, but if it had been multiple sentence with this pattern, it would. I note this isn't the first time I've mentioned something that was borderline infringement, so I'm asking you to please avoid walking so close to the line because you might end up crossing it. I realize you might live under a heightened state of scrutiny but that doesn't mean a copyright infringement is any less OK. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I reworded it previously (atleast the wording of the phrase). Are you of opinion that the list of names of towns can be copy righted too? Or do you mean I should have shuffled the list (I can do that if that makes it any better)? I know it would constitute a vio if I copy pasted, but here I tried to reword the explanation part and kept the list of towns as it was. And, oh.. it was the same thing you told me about, the last time (that's when I amended it - save the names). --lTopGunl (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it's fairly obvious that you took the text from this with only some minor changes. To list them one by one:

• Original: "miscreants indulged in large scale massacres and rape against pro-Pakistan elements"

  Yours: "rebels responsible for large scale massacres and rape against pro-Pakistani community"

• Original: (city names)

  Yours: (same city names)

• Original: "and several other smaller places"

  Yours: and other smaller areas."

Put simply, that's too close for comfort, or it would be if it constituted more than one sentence. I can't give you a definitive explanation on exactly when it's OK, but we have an essay that does a pretty good job of it: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't use a completely different wording for the phrases (the title of victims, perpetrators and the term "large scale massacres" are simple facts). I can still try another rephrase if this is ends up in the article may be using synonyms. As for "same city names", that is not a copy vio at all. Facts can't be copyrighted. Hope you see my point. I understand there might be some inadvertent similar, if not close, paraphrasing on the over all. Will take a read of the essay too. Had it been a descriptive paragraph, I would have definitely written it from scratch. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Still, if it was unavoidable because you were quoting a study, putting the first phrase in quotation marks would have been better. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Now that you see how this was unavoidable, hope this was not in response to an email. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it was in response to an email request. But I've specifically told said emailer that s/he is free to contact me that way if s/he believes there is a copyright violation or a violation of your IBAN with Darkness Shines (I indicated that I thought there was neither). I am only being cryptic to maintain privacy (I'm not sure if you know whodunnit). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Aren't many people to count, so... understand your limitation, thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Finger Monkey Wire

Hello. Please review my article. The website is definitely notable because it is the only Pakistani site to make it to the Dubai Mobile Show Finalists list. And it is driven by female software engineers of the country. So it needs to be on Wikipedia.

Have a look and help me get it published. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiraan Javed (talk • contribs) 07:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article, you should not source your article only by your own website. If the website is notable, there must be some news paper reports etc about it? (even offline or in another language). If you can site such reliable sources, then it will be possible for you to move the article to mainspace without getting it deleted. Please take read of the reliable sources policy link so that you understand it better. When you add the sources, I can review it again for you. Drop me a note anytime. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan national movement

Hi TopGun! I am just getting in touch to let you know that I have created the article Pakistan national movement. I think that You can help to improve it. I would appreciate any assistance you could provide in improving this article. Regards Averroist (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. This was long due. I created a redlink for it here once, I've moved it to the caps. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation note

Hello! The formal mediation case you are a named party in is now proceeding to discussion on preliminary issues on the case talk page. You are invited to begin discussing on the section titled "Neutrality Considerations".

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Will respond. I was waiting for the last part which you just struck. Thanks for letting me know. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi. You put a note on my talk page. I wasn't edit warring. The changes to the article in question is changing two references to the region between 1947 and 55, to East Bengal, which you know was its name between those years, from East Pakistan, which was what the article mentioned before I made some edits to it. There were two instances of East Pakistan when East Bengal should have been mentioned. But in the same section, there is a quote from 1967, when the region was East Pakistan and would have unquestionably been called that. I mistakenly changed the quote from East Pakistan to East Bengal too, not seeing that it was from 1967, but changed it back shortly after when I noticed the mistake. You saw that, and maybe also didn't notice that the quote is from 1967, and changed it back East Bengal, and changed the two mistaken instances of East Pakistan which I corrected to East Bengal back. So when you left it, when it was supposed to be East Bengal, it was East Pakistan, and when it was supposed to be East Pakistan, it was East Bengal. So I corrected that and noted the mistake on the talk page, and somehow you thought it was an edit war. Anyway, now that I tried to meticulously describe this seemingly tiny matter, I hope you'll see the silly mistake. Happy editing!

I didn't go back to change the article now. Hope someone here will go and change the mistake. --Fmqtr3754 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for clarifying this. I left that note on your talkpage due to your second revert on the page without a discussion (actually meaning to get you discuss like you did now). Edit warring notices actually mean to welcome discussion and not to drive away editors. Please feel free to change that now citing this discussion so that it will not be considered editwar - I guess we both missed some part, but please keep in mind when you are comparing West Pakistan, the other side obviously has to be East Pakistan as it was not there at the time of East Bengal. Also, when the separation is mentioned, it is in context with East Pakistan. How about you mention "East Bengal (later East Pakistan)" at the last mention so that an unaware reader is not confused with the sudden change of name? That might do the trick. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The first edit that you're referring to as a revert was just changing the quote back to East Pakistan, which I changed by mistake. The revert I did was to your edit, in which you reverted all the edits I made to that section, and I explained it on the talk page of the article and noted "See talk" in the edit summary. So if you read my note on the talk page carefully, you would have noticed your mistake in doing the revert, and I wouldn't have had to come to this page to explain it. The thing I notice is not that I didn't explain my edit, but that you didn't read my explanation or somehow missed what it was saying, so didn't the other editor, Darkness Shines, who who didn't read the edit summaries. --Fmqtr3754 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I read your explanation and replied on the talk page, with the revert. Editwar is still considered disruptive even when you are discussing along with it - just as a note - but doesn't matter now that it is resolved and was just a misunderstanding. I think your explanation on talk page didn't cover the context enough as I still had doubts along with the fact that you changed a part about after 1955. Well, I guess it's fixed now. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)