User talk:TopGun/Archives/2011/December

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.

When you return, I've started a discussion on the lead here.--v/r - TP 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, seems adequate. I'll respond when I'm able to... --lTopGunl (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit here, I would like to clarify that I had changed it to "Afghanistan-related analysts and monitors" because the definition of "Afghan monitors" is dubious and unclear. The term 'monitors' is often used to refer to analysts or observers of a particular subject. I have often, for example, seen the phrase "Pakistan monitors" used in news reports (such as American sources) and what that usually implies is analysts who focus on Pakistan and not necessarily Pakistani officials themselves. I think that's what the Pakistan Observer news report means when it was saying "Afghan monitors" i.e. analysts and experts on Afghanistan. We need to present everything as clear as we can and avoid ambiguity and the same concept should be applied especially when stating claims such as these.

Apart from there not being enough sources and clarification on the nationality "Afghan monitors", even if we just apply some common sense, I generally find it hard to believe that these would be the words of an Afghan official. However, I await your reply and your opinion on this. Mar4d (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Afghan" is actually a demonym for the nationals with no dispute on that fact. If you think or have experience with news sources wrongly using that word that might be the case, but Afghan and Afghanistan-related would be two completely different terms and the text would then be on our own interpretation. Let's put it on the article talk page for a third opinion if you would like? Actually let's compare it to the first news it is giving about the military observers at Islamabad. Those turn out to be Pakistani defence analysts. There is a good possibility that this was intended for the nationality purpose too. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, this story is not widely published in any other sources except for the Pakistan Observer article so it's a bit vague to understand the story in depth even if we ask a third party opinion. I think it was probably some misuse of the noun on Pakistan Observer's part (what they probably meant to say is Afghanistan monitors) and since they haven't given information on who these "Afghan" monitors are, it seems more likely that they actually mean Pakistani analysts who are "monitors" on Afghanistan. Having said that, I will repeat again, that I am having a hard time figuring out that an Afghan would give this type of statement (it just doesn't sound right for obvious reasons). It's much more likely that this is a Pakistani claim. Mar4d (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What about using "Afghanistan" instead of the two terms in debate? And you have a point in the end... Afghans won't probably give that information, but then again, Pakistanis do too. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer using "Afghanistan". Mar4d (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I just changed it, though seems a bit weird grammar but ok. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty certain I did not commit any vandalism (and as an admin and ten-year Wikipedia veteran, I think I know the policies). I did consider reporting you for WP:OWN though. (And poor Ed, who you ran off the article has been around almost as long as I.) My concerns about that article are still not adequately addressed. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

NATO and US sent condolences in return. And the claim is unrefuted. You seemed to be deliberately editing that. I do not think I own the article and invite(d) every one for talk page discussion. You can raise your concerns at the article talk page instead. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hassan, instead of spending your time on articles like Soviet war in Afghanistan where many more better qualified editors have already been doing a good job, I would like to divert your attention to a very important article that needs your attention for further improvement: Battle of Karbala. As you can see from its history logs, that article has had 50+ edits in the last 10 days itself and is undergoing all kinds of activities from vandalism to POV etc. Your background, technical expertise and skill level are not only appropriate for it but can do wonders for that article -- please consider becoming its editor. Thanks. 202.3.77.183 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for letting me, know yes I will keep an eye out for any other trolls on that article --Ambelland (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I didn't see those blogs being cited again! --lTopGunl (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:) thanks, yes some very dodgy sources, and he keeps inserting the biased views everywhere... I will look for citations of the content removed from the link

--Ambelland (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. The article is now being watched by more people so there would probably be less vandalism. Ok, I'll see too. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

some more vandlism on the page, who keeps bringing up thinks already on the page, and is making edits in bad faith . particularly lots of pro Indain properganda . I also suspect the account may be another copy --Ambelland (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this one is him. Discuss with him on the article talk page and build a consensus. If he editwars on the same content as Behrozaltaf, then maybe we can see about a sockpuppet investigation. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Configuration Menu Language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummm....JCAla has reported you over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring due to some editing dispute. I thought I might let you know, since he hasn't notified you. Mar4d (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what he has reported me for, since the only interaction I've made with the user is on a talk page. Thanks for informing me. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

He's gone way over now. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Replied. P.S. I get notified of mails faster than talk page. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Read also: 1.) WP:ROPE, 2.) WP:POINT, & 3.) WP:TE. IF that someone is indeed behaving in such a way, move yourself away from that area which they're operating in and let them have the free hand to do so, other editors would be able to see their deeds soon enough and then it is off to the chopping board of ANI/AN3 for the guilty party. Sounds good to you? Try to remember that we are all volunteers here, the primary joy of editing Wikipedia for us is worth everything we know and seek, when compared to such puny shenanigans. Also, I would implore you to read up on WP:OWB (especially WP:OWB#52!), you learn more from this than any other thing you might find here on Wikipedia. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Will read. Hope the last reply and the intention here got through to you. Regards. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:University of Houston. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for informing me --Ambelland (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

the current articles only accuses ISI of doing things in balouchistan, my paragraph on what the insurgents where convited of has been removed. I have asked the admin to introduce the following

Seeing as you are and admin, and the article is blocked from my editing, I wanted to include the offician denial from the goverment to the allegations "Whilst the Provincial Government says it is doing its best to improve law and order and end target killing which it blames on rival factional fighting.As many as 985 people have been sentenced so far while the cases of 875 accused in various crimes were in the courts" source http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=24183 furthere more another section says "From 1994-2001, the ISI is widely agreed by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces "

it should say "From 1994-2001, the ISI is widely agreed by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in the after math of the fall of Commmunist Afghan when the Afghan Civil War started power" , I think its wrong to refer to all groups then as anti taliban, they changed sides many times and groups where fighting for thier interest not some grand primarily anti taliban alliance'''Bold text' --Ambelland (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why the other user feels balouchistan needs its own subsection it can go in the same order

• (1980s) etc etc

also Pakistan should be in alphabetical order, why is it first .

Indain reciption bit already exists, if he wants to quote random books, I will also find books.books can say anything and one can publish something pariticulary indians and the american right,Tony Blair in his biography clearly says that only indains beleived ISI was behind mumbai attacks,,,I try to find that quote no room for conspiray theoreis on that article I believe --Ambelland (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. The article got protected because of the edit war. The way to edit the text now is first building consensus among all concerned editors (even after the protection expires) and then add the content as agreed upon. If there is disagreement, this can be taken to a noticeboard but I think this can be solved here. There's no need to immediately correct the article. It will eventually be fixed to the correct information after the discussion completes. You have good points here. I think you should present them on the article's talk page. You are right, wikipedia is not for conspiracy theories and speculation. You've to make that point to the other editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Taliban". Thank you. JCAla (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm deleting your addition to the article 1960 U-2 incident. You posted hearsay without a source. If you can find a reliable source to back up the claim, cite it and return the text. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for informing. I read it some where and lost the source. I'll place it back if I find the source. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

please take a look at the sources used (coll, labeviere, reeve) in these articles [1], [2]. i think you'll find them interesting..-- mustihussain  21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Checked. Thanks, I was looking for these! --lTopGunl (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar by September88 copied to user page. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		I award you this Barnstar for your continuous quality work on Pakistan related articles.September88 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to TopGun by September88 (talk) on 01:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will keep doing :) ...feel free to drop a message if you need help in related topics. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give suggestions for major improvements on Pakistan before I put it up for peer view? I would like it to become FA again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had this article on my watchlist since I went active here. I think it is in pretty good shape, I recently reviewed it's former FA revision; the current one is in much better shape than that. Let's put it up for peer review and see what comes out of it. We can then try to improve it during the review. The article probably won't need any major improvements as per my opinion, some minor tweaks, if pointed out in a review, will put it in order. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've put in a request for peer view. Lets hope it gets a good response.September88 (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm watchlisting the peer review and will respond in it as it progresses. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the 'RfC:Threaded Discussion' header at Talk:Pakistan studies? Are you advising people to place their comments there, or in the RfC proper? My suggestion would be to remove that header. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is meant for new comments to be placed under it. I did that as noted in Wikipedia:Rfc. One comment has been placed under it now, so makes some sense atleast. If you disagree, you can remove it, it's not a big deal. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that a common element in some of your edits is that you are active in situations where you feel that Pakistan is being unfairly accused of something? If you agree with this assessment, it may help admins and others figure out where everyone is coming from. I never heard the term Indophobia until very recently, so for me that term represents a brand-new ethnic dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a POV to push of my self. I saw some articles that have been biased and tried to correct them (with discussion) and I faced extreme lashback, editwars and personal attacks in some cases. There is a general disagreement over issues related to Pakistan and India among editors at wikipedia, so mostly these disputes happen between all kinds of editors. These however seem to be nested cases of bias which I contested and in response Wikireader accused me of "removing negative information against Pakistan" while I was sticking to NPOV policy to discuss both sides of the dispute. The common element here would be that I mostly edit on Pakistan related articles (which is my area of knowledge/interest on wikipedia - see my contributions list, I'm active on many Pakistan related articles), so I don't completely agree with the assessment. As an IP user noted here that Wikireader is active on all articles which accuse or bias against Pakistan, his accusation would apply to himself for raising the same point again on another article with the same content after not getting a consensus on one. Some articles I edit are controversial and I'm okay with disputes (which are healthy for content improvement), and disputing content are no grounds for calling me an SPA which User:Wikireader41 did to base his RFC comment on at Talk:Indophobia. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello TopGun. I am just letting you know that I deleted Sector 17, Chandigarh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Guerillero | My Talk 07:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. That would be notability I think. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've sort of modified the original sentence on the crossroads (see the lead). I put "South Asia's crossroads" instead, since it seems less repetetive than mentioning South Asia again. What do you think, does it make sense (or is there any better wording) or was the previous version better? Mar4d (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think previous version was better, since the cross roads are mentioned as crossroads of all three regions. The previous version is more explanatory clarifying that it is on the cross roads from Central Asia to Middle East as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Mar4d (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

South Asia comes once in both versions for the concern you mentioned, one is just a passive form. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your reversal is fine. However there are far more hetergeneous countries apart from the UK, Estonia, Pakistan and Israel who designate themselves as "nation states". A possible problem in this context, is that it is diverging from the article and the actual topic if more similar examples are added.

Sincerely Noraton (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2011 (CET)

You are right in your view, but I've added sources atleast for the content I added ie. Pakistan which include sources from outside Pakistan. Similarly you can review for the other states whether they are self designated or neutrally sourced. Further additions of diverging content can be monitored and discussed if added. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that Dilas25 is having a POV agenda against Estonia and everything Estonian. For example I reverted his POV "editions" (his/her own personal comments which are not the same with the sources he/she adds) about Russians in Estonia in the Nation State article. Could you check and if necessary warn this user, and that he/she does not add POV remarks that often contradict the sources he/she adds. Actually this is the diverging point from the Nation State article. Thank you.

Sincerely Noraton (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2011 (CET)

I've warned him as well. Start a discussion on talk page and confront him about it. If his content is properly sourced, ask for the neutrality. Usually the one adding negative content faces more scrutiny. If the disagreement continues after some discussion, then you can take the issue to WP:DRN. Continuing to revert will only get sanctions to both since both of you are over WP:3RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've interacted with him before (as you said on his talk page), but just as general knowledge, he's that guy. Mar4d (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Just saw the SPI. What a mess. He's getting blocked soon at this pace, don't reply to his BS all over the wiki, that's what he wants. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

He's literally going crazy. Just check out the latest thread by yet another user at User talk:Kiftaan#Once again. Mar4d (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Told you it'll come back to him. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how to open up a Sockpuppet investigation (the exact method)? Have you opened one before? I think it's really important and will confirm whether this user is related to the Islamabad-based Afghan editor User:Lagoo sab (there's already enough evidence). Mar4d (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is very easy. Go to the input box of "Start or continue an SPI case here" at Wikipedia:Spi and add "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab" to the input box. You'll get a semi filled form to fill up. I think I also have a piece of evidence. I once supported to block the editor NorthernPushtun for racist comments on the (archive) page you have linked on top... following up that case back then I found one of his sock's comments exactly like these [3] where he asked the blocking administrator to let him go or something on the pretext of the Judgement day which he so faithfully assumes in his favour. I'm trying to find that fragment yet (leave me note if you find it). I think a case should be opened. A check user on him will clear things up. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding because you are named as part of User:Kiftaan's mass-sockpuppet conspiracy theory. The thread is The user who cried sock. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

the relationship between the cia and haqqani is described here [4]. haqqani is of course part of the taliban.-- altetendekrabbe  11:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Great (will use). Getting it through slowly... only if the socks would let me work on anything other than their POVs. Been across 3 just in the last 2 weeks. The last one mentioned in a section above was crazy. PS. you seem to have some knowledge about the sources and the issue, feel free to jump in anytime. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Need your opinion at Talk:Pakistan#Regional power. See you there, Mar4d (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw your recent edit on this article and it is not neutral so I advise you to pacify your language and these are just allegations by Pakistan army not proved so far so treat it as a controversy or something like that. You can reply here or we can discuss on that article's talk page.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What is not neutral there? I mentioned India refutes and they are claimed to be doing that. What is the objection here? --lTopGunl (ping) 17:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey there TopGun would you mind reviewing my edit ? this is the diff [5] If you have more add be my guest and have a good day p.s I removed the trolls message from your page If you want it back dont hesitate to remove my deletion sorry If I come across a bit aggressive I have learnt in Wikipedia that trolls must be dealt wit harshly take care 109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User dark has been vandalising the article on 1965 air war the article contains sources from retired indian generals now that smells of pov from miles away take a short look you will know what I mean 109.150.60.235 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm checking it out. Thanks for removing the unwarranted notice. --lTopGunl (ping) 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the Pakistanophobia article has been handled well by Mar4d now. I'm still catching up with all the watchlist updates and Darkness Shines's reverts everywhere. The airwar article needs a over haul. There are many neutral sources on its talk page which you might want to take a look at. Consider creating a user account. That will help you watchlist the articles and keep an ID if your IP changes. --lTopGunl (ping) 17:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[6] Not a single source and you reverted it back in. You keep doing this and it has to stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop poking in all my contributions and labeling me for adding OR when I'm merely reverting vandalism or unexplained removals when you are brink of a block yourself. And stay off my talk page. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

TopGun is right. Removal of content without an edit summary like that is considered generally vandalism. There is no way you found that unless you were looking through his contributions for something to accuse him of. Stop hounding him. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not tell other editors to "Stay off my talk page" in your edit comments. The purpose of user talk pages is to discuss the edits of a user, and doing so is an important tool for improving the encyclopedia.

Also, please note that while users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, the removal of a warning is evidence that the warning has been read by the user. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They've been told so at WP:ANI, so whatsoever the its purpose is, is irrelevant to some editors. And I'm well aware of talk page guidelines. But to start with... who are you? --lTopGunl (ping) 14:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just an ordinary Wikipedia editor who happened to come across your page during a random search. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, don't worry, that was per ANI. I don't say that to anyone anyway (unless they are too rude). --lTopGunl (ping) 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Unwatching this page now. Cheers! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)