User talk:TopGun/Archives/2014/November

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TopGun. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I understand. i'll try to make it more neutral.BEARtruth89 (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You can replace the word 'propaganda' (unless used in reliable sources) with some neutral word in context. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

	REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE
	Thank you sir for correcting me Shaharyar.121 (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please your view per WP:NPOV to this. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user's understanding of 'consensus' as he wrongly thinks if content satisfies policies he automatically has consensus. I don't know if the infobox should be there or not (or combined into one), but if it is there, it should not contain puffery, rather just sourced scoring and information (correct scoring is not puffery if it just has figures though). I don't really know what MOS says about two infoboxes. You took the best route to the RFC. I'm leaving my comments there as well. About NPOV, it is a definite requirement of wikipedia articles and I'll note that. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. As you have learnt the confusion regarding motive in the 2014 Wagah border suicide attack, I would like to draw your attention towards this article. Here motive is written US support of Israel and according to the situation at the former article, it should be something like Retaliation of US support of Israel or Terrorism in response to US support of Israel. Please share your view here. Thanks.  SAMI  ^talk 17:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about that. See WP:BOLD; you can change such things without waiting for consensus. And if any one wants to object and they can revert you for a discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I won't change things, which are already in order. The motive used in the article is correct. Should you don't mind please give your opinion here at my talk page. Thanks in advance.  SAMI  ^talk 17:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. If something is done wrong there, it does not mean that should be done else where too. Infact as I stated above, that should be corrected as well. Stating "US support for Israel" or "Operation Zarb-e-Azb" as a motive seems to some one unaware of the subject as if the motive was to propagate that operation / support or was in support of it. Motive is the reason for doing something as seen by the perpetrator. If the infobox just said 'reason' instead of 'motive', then your logic would have been ok. Here, the motive was retaliation or response not the operation. That's like saying a criminal's motive for a murder was an act of the victim, which is incorrect as the motive would be 'revenge', not the act. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I move my edits associated with my IP address to my account? StephenTyColbert (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, no I don't think that can be done. But now that you have created an account, whenever you edit while logged in all your edits will accumulate under this account. If you want to show that you have edited before under an IP address, an alternative would be to list the IP addresses on your user page and mention that you used to edit from them before (that is only if you want to be associated with those IP addresses) or you can simply mention that you used to edit before without an account. If you just want to find out about any changes and keep track of the same edits, you can instead watchlist those articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This was very helpful. Thank you. StephenTyColbert (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have made changes to wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_Army_Staff_(Pakistan) as per the info on ISPR.GOV.PK (https://www.ispr.gov.pk/front/main.asp?o=t-chiefs&dept=coas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalsoomnawaz (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You should not copy paste it from the ISPR website, because you do not hold the copy rights to it. If you want to add something specific that you think is missing, feel free to add it with ISPR website as reference only. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The content on ISPR.GOV.PK is for public and media, hence we can freely copy/paste it. For further confirmation you can contact webmaster@ispr.gov.pk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalsoomnawaz (talk • contribs) 15:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Kalsoomnawaz, public media does not necessarily mean that the content is in public domain. It clearly says "all rights reserved" even on the ISPR website. And say if you did get that permission, there's still plagiarism to consider. Wikipedia can't just copy paste. If there is anything missing that you want to add, I'll be glad to help. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Got a future article for corporate stuff too :p Mar4d (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hah! --lTopGunl (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That would do well as the main article there. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the plan. Once the deployments article is completed perhaps. Mar4d (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

--lTopGunl (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Salaam Wa Rahmah Dear! I am from Iqbal Academy Pakistan, we have been working to spread Allama Iqbal's message around the Globe. I will be more interested to work on the project. Regards, Fahim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahimchouhdry (talk • contribs)

Wsalam. If you are from Iqbal Academy, it might be more appropriate for you to let other editors deal with the links of that website and not add them yourself. Apart from that, you are welcome to contribute and join WikProject Pakistan. You can see some of the things you can help with in my welcome message on your talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear! We revamped Iqbal Cyber Library website with new website. All the links and pattern of the website has been changed, so it was necessary to update these links on all the pages related to it. I am working on it, many of wiki pages have Iqbal cyber library links, gradually it would be updated by myself or editors like you.
One more thing I need to discuss with you, there is a wiki page I created Iqbal Academy Scandinavia, which turned into proposed deletion by some editor. Can you help me to save the page or improve it....Thanks, Fahim --User:Fahimchouhdry 00:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTABILITY. If the academy satisfies these guide lines, you will not need to work on it, some editor will eventually create a page on it. If you still think that it should be on wikipedia, please see the link and request an article. However please keep conflict of interest in mind. As you work for them, it is best that you do not create or edit the pages yourself other than adding obvious facts backed by neutral sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

are u admin at wikipedia ? is there any Pakistani admin ? 119.158.16.248 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin but I am a regular editor. It does not matter though, as administrators do not have control over content, rather editors do. So you are welcome to contribute as much or as little as you like. Creating an account will help you keep your anonymity and hide your IP as well as keep all your edits under the same account. You can also join Wikiproject Pakistan to collaborate on Pakistan related topics with other editors. Hope that helps. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

i do have account but jo maza IP address se edit krny mae hai woh account se kahan ;) cheers 119.158.16.248 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Just make sure your logged out edits are not supportive of your logged in edits. Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Thanks, i am aware of sock puppetry :) i am not that type. btw in recent survey i have made a suggestion to Wikipedia that please don't let IPS to edit it. In my viewpoint it is necessary to insure reliability. Just think otherwise majority of us would turn to be Gujjars ? lol :p frankly, these are the claims what i have been observing continuously from some IPS of Pakistan. hope it gets better. kind regards. 119.158.16.248 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's user accounts that are anonymous, not the IPs as they reveal their real location. It's just that mostly they keep switching for people which creates the mess. Don't worry about the reliability. The net result of such editing (and since articles are often in watchlists of regular editors) is that we get good content, esp. to topics less covered (like Pakistan). I'm wary of people mass adding ethnic tags to biographies though... I'm fine either way but it's ridiculous to see people editwar over it or when they do this. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity in itself is not a problem as long as there is a source and which is also reliable. btw i don't know how my IP changes frequently. every time i re-connect there is a new IP address for me. 119.158.16.248 (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your ISP does that on purpose as a security precaution. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how did you color your title TopGun ? 119.158.13.1 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to do that from your account, preferences. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for info. regards! 119.158.13.1 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TopGun. You have new messages at SBaker43's talk page.
Message added 07:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SBaker43 (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Took me a minute or two and I've found that until 20 October 2014,[1] we've been using these details for more than 4 years. I have restored the previous parameter because the edit war over parameter was recent, check the talk page, I have detailed more. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I guess 'things have always been done this way' is a known wrong... but let me check more of it and get back to you on article talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have restored settled revision. Thank you. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

How about we all cut the editwar and leave it be (sure, discuss on talkpage)... it was already stable after Myopia's edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your reversion of my edit to Indian subcontinent. The sentence as it was before my edit and again after your revert seemed rather oddly phrased, the use of both terms when they had previously been defined as synonyms is redundant. --Khajidha (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As one of the sources for the statement is specifically titled South Asia, I found it WP:DUE to define with respect to the relation of the terms. It might not be the most elegant way of stating it, but I wouldn't call it odd either as it gives some due emphasis to the interchangeability. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the external influences are already discussed below. Pakistani cuisine=regional cuisines based inside Pakistan. South Asian cuisines can have an article of it's own with mentions to Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.175 (talk • contribs)

Yes in the body, per WP:LEDE, the lede summarizes the main body. So its got to mention atleast the word. I think its neutral enough. You can expand the lede a bit to say that South Asia influences it and it comes mainly from the country itself if you want to say it that way; whatever seems elegent... but we've to take care of WP:DUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)