User talk:TopGun/Archives/2012/June

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.

Thanks for the edit. I believe you are from Pakistan. The article needs a Pakistani viewpoint, to balance it and to fill up gaps (especially in sections titled Pakistani response and Reaction in West Pakistan to the war). Can you lend a hand or get help from others (of course, the editor should not be too patriotic to outgun encyclopedic approach)? If we can have three editors from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to collaborate, may be we can ask for a bigger collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. This is one of the biggest events in Indian history, the biggest in Pakistani history, and the history for Bangladesh. I wonder at the little work it received so far. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The topic area has already faced a lot of POV pushing. I was just trying to keep it neutral or to the facts. When POVs are given I'm in favour of giving all of them so that the wiki doesn't look like Indopedia or Pakistanopedia. There are many articles related to Pakistan, India and Bangladesh which I can suggest for improvement, but I guess this will be a slow project with me stuck in so many disputes elsewhere though that shouldn't be a problem as there's no deadline. I'm from Pakistan (as my user page indicates) and can find you some Pakistani editors to provide more hands for the Pakistani side of POV additions in balance with others so that the articles stick to NPOV in overall. I think this should be a slightly bigger project than just three editors. Somewhere near 3 each so that some of them are always free to fix the obscure articles. What do you say? (On a side note, it would be a good idea to make sure the editors involved aren't the ones who have previously accused each other of badfaith as that might lead to the contentious stuff these topics never lack). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed. I was hoping for only three editors as I possibly don't see more than one Bangladeshi editor actively participating without bias (namely me), though User:Ragib probably will pitch in. Let's see who I can bring in. Since that's going to be a bit of challenge, I propose that you knock up Pakistani editors after I get the Bangladeshis. I believe you have access to more unbiased editors from Pakistan than what I can bring to the table at the moment. Alternatively, we can start right away and see where we go. You are right, there's no deadline. What's your take? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have added more stuff to the Indian Subcontinent article. It increasingly looks like an alternative term for South Asia. Did you check? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do that. We can create a combined task force of the three Wikiprojects then so as to make it a bit on the track of guidelines. I know some good editors who can provide input without POV pushing. All we need is a few non chauvinistic editors as many of these are war & battle articles. I saw the edits on the subcontinent article. I guess that and South Asia can do with much improvement. They could have been better if merged, but can still be near that... maybe then people who opposed can see better why we supported for merge and change their mind. Doesn't matter btw, if the editors aren't very active, we can do with that. Every body wants to revert and no body wants to add content. If there's a joint initiative and there's a complex or complete disagreement we can easily move and and leave the disputes to be handled by others already doing that all over the place. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2012 (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 "Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996)". Thank you. JCAla (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Useless fork of Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Try keeping it at one place. Simply introduce the article title there - the content is already in discussion with you there. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this a violation of your interaction ban? Regardless of how you got there? You might want to undo your !vote. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a violation... I previously clarified on ANI that first come first serve is not the scope of IBAN and nor is any discussion directly related to content. RFCs are often started directly on the content that one adds and those are not considered as such. A few are at Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment right now. An ANI discussion has been started, I've replied there. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I would note that assuming there is an iban between you and Darkness Shines, your vote at an AFD on an article he created might not look so good. [1] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No such is not a violation. I've replied there thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, I found the recent thread on ANI to be quite illustrative of the entire case as a whole: Darkness Shines is obeying the letter of the rule while violating its spirit, Meanwhile, you make an edit because you think "well the other guy is allowed to do it, so I might as well too." There are a few problems that have cropped up in this:

• You haven't been completely innocent to begin with: I don't believe you're trying to stay away from his edits as much as you should be, or that you would be if you didn't perceive him trying to push the envelope.
• Two wrongs don't make a right.
• When asked to remedy the problem, your response was not "oops, undoing now" as a show of good faith, but instead something akin to "but he started it" or "but he's more guilty." This is a classic tu quoque argument: it ignores the fact that we are focusing on your alleged violations, and it seriously sours the conversation by introducing an ad hominem.

Please avoid editing or nominating for deletion any articles started by Darkness Shines, and please avoid editing or removing any sections edited or added by Darkness Shines. That the interaction ban has been flouted in the past is immaterial: please don't violate it yourself anymore. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If you've read my replies to that discussion, you'll know that the reason I did not redact was not because I didn't want to avoid this drama, it was because out of the blue when it was ok to comment in AFDs, I was reported for doing the same and that would set an arbitrary precedence for the future. I'm redacting it now. From the clarifications made now at ANI along with the previous ones, I understand that it is ok to comment at any AFDs together (except on those for articles created by other) or to start RFCs (as there have been dozens) to comment purely on the content in an article edited by both and not directly revert or change each other's edits and that this case was for the AFDs on articles created by each other. I understood the last part completely differently as I showed there with examples. I would not do it on purpose. I have no intention of initiating an interactions or being the reason for an interaction. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Some at at the talk page at WP:IBAN seem to think it is not ok for paths to cross at AFD, and I would agree, obviously. Retracting is a good idea and I would thank you. I have begun a dialog at the policy page to get changes that will make the policy more clear, either AFD is fine or it is not. Admittedly, the lack of clarity is the key problem here, and I was surprised to see how entirely vague the policy is on iban. This is something I will work to get cleared up so future incidents will be less likely, making the situation more fair for all parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it will be ok to change the iban conditions the users agreed to now that they would change in the middle. If it does happen that such changes are made, I'll request an exception to my own case for that change as AFDs had never been a problem other than this where "who created the article" was being considered. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, what I'm asking for is clarity, not necessarily change. Looking at the policy, it is not easy to see if AFD is ok or not. It should be more clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a better idea, there have been a lot of clarifications for my IBAN due to the complexities that are there in the topic area. I can make a list of all those and present them on that talk page or somewhere. Because they've been made by administrators and are reasonable, it won't be a problem listing them. Infact, all clarifications ever made about the IBANs in general should be updated to a page dedicated to it so that it can be referred to in future and all under one should be advised to watch the list. How about starting a page in the WP space? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, an interaction ban is not set out with specific parameters and it is unreasonable to expect an exact listing. While it is certainly possible that you may, in good faith, misunderstand the boundaries of the ban, and I'm always willing to assume that that is the case, you should consider being proactive in reverting when the question of a violation arises. My suggestion is that you remove the offending edit and then discuss whether or not it is a violation. --regentspark (comment) 12:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing first and then discussing would be a good idea, but you might have read that there are concerns about how the ban is being construed while it was not construed on the same before. I have no way of telling that I have violated when it was ok before even though there are no specific parameters. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I completely understand this. This is why I came here after the ANI started, tried to just get it removed so I could close without further action, and why I'm starting the conversation at IBAN. It isn't fair for the "rules" to be less than perfectly clear. Even if consensus disagrees with my ideas, I want clarity as what the rules ARE, to prevent confusing in the future. Even if you think you are in the right, it is always in your best interest if you err on the side of good faith by removing, then discuss with a familiar admin. If he thinks it is fine, you can always add it back and have a justification if it went to ANI later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've added your IBAN thread to my watchlist, better to get the rules clear or defined somewhat. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

please note that I have already posted a note about this on the article's talk page. Unlike the IP, who didn't react to anything I wrote on his or her talk page. So careful with those templates, please. O.Koslowski (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC) And since the IP never reacted and you seem to support the claim, consider yourself tasked with finding proper references that support the claim that the bombing is generally considered an act of state-sponsored terrorism. If you fail to do so in a timely manner, I will request dispute resolution. O.Koslowski (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP did react by reverting, but you seemed to react the same way instead of waiting for a response from the IP. Also, I indicated a support for the edit. I'll continue to discuss that on that talk page, as far as the template is concerned, you've crossed 3RR already and there's no excuse for that even if you are discussing - the warning was rightly delivered to both you and the IP. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

TG, I notice you consider the renomination by DS disruptive. But, do bear in mind the note by the closing admin on the previous deletion discussion. the template has been renamed and revised during the discussion. Feel free to renominate it if you still feel it should be deleted. I'm not sure if arguing that the renomination is an instance of WP:POINT after such a clear invitation. I would let it go if I were you (but, of course, it's your call.) --regentspark (comment) 22:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No I did not comment on this renomination... actually I can't and shouldn't do that, you know.. the IBAN. I passed a general remark on any renomination of this or another template, and hope you see the point in it. I am no longer replying to those arguments if you see, but in my opinion, when things are closed with no consensus even with an invitation to renominate, a renomination without saying what changed that has caused the renomination is worthless as the same would happen just again, that would be just over-riding the admin's decision to close rather than relist. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, No worries. Since you're not commenting on it anyway, the point is moot. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

...And I'd welcome your input; please, see here. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And again. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh... watchlisting. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• You are getting popular, everyone wants to talk about you again and again. Keep it up! --SMS ^Talk 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You bet ;) --lTopGunl (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Woah.. great achievement! :D Mar4d (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The information I removed over at the Pakistan article was not backed up by the given source. It said "recognized regional languages", but the just gave a census link to show that these languages are spoken there. If just being present in the census made something a "recognized regional language", then places like Australia and the US would have hundreds of them. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 07:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi please raise the point on Talk:Pakistan. I'm sure it will be verified and either a new source added or resolved other wise. Simple drive by removals some times have a reverse effect. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one who wants to keep the 'militant' label, where as more than 3 editors in recent history including me have reverted to the 'terrorist' label. Keep in mind, the main articles of both the organisations, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, say they have been declared as terrorist organisations and even banned for that. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, me and another editor reverted it. Two other reverts were procedural reverts if you read their edit summaries. Also, read WP:TERRORIST before using the label. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope you know that Sock puppetry is not acceptable on wikipedia. Anir1uph (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I know that, and I did not point to sock's revert but another user's. Look again. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• If TopGun above is referring me as the other editor, then i must clarify (so that i am not wrongly represented) that I hold the view that they are declared Terrorist organisations--DℬigXray 18:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well as you just said and your revert being opposite of that says, we do not follow our own views but NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• like I said its specially meant for you so that you stop declaring around and advertising my view (as you did above), got it ? (there is a reason i am stating this here on your talk page )as for the revert do you want me to self revert to clarify my position ? --DℬigXray 19:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Other than double standards and suddenly changing your view when I am in the dispute, diffs are hard evidence of endorsement. And I'll cite them as I like. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

sure, I'll be glad to clarify, wherever I can, ciao --DℬigXray 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Both Darkness Shines and JCAla have indicated that they are willing to cease disputes elsewhere. I trust that you also agree with this. I've asked the following question: "Would participants be willing to agree on specific examples of text within articles that we could take a look at with reference to the identified issues?" [2] Sunray (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the Ban Proposal for both TopGun and DarknessShines currently under discussion at ANI is probably going to overshadow this (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Mob rule again? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please make a separate article for list of all Committees of national assembly because the page National Assembly of Pakistan is taking too much time to load on slow internet connections... and also remove the table for election results 2008 because results are already published under these articles Elections in Pakistan Pakistani general election, 2008 thank you...Tariq.Imran ^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I just removed your template of DBigXray - as you can see, it's already been under discussion - no need to be rude and pile-on with a template (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I just came online and saw his template on my talk, which was inappropriate.. checking out the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll also want to check User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre for part 2 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Just read that... don't think it is necessary for me to reply there, though I do think my comment was removed wrongly... but I don't really see the point of re-adding it, the intended person read it. Changed my mind. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, the message was sent and received. Further re-adding or commenting will just fuel the greater fire that's already aglow. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I changed my mind about that seeing the discussions going on around and how things are being treated with double standards. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you fricking serious? Edit-warring to keep it on? I'll give you a few minutes to self-revert, or I will have no choice but to block you for edit-warring (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Editwarring? One single revert to add back my own comment that was removed against the talkpage guidelines is not editwar. Go and read the policies. Don't think you're in the right to block me on adding back a civil comment given your treatment of actual personal attacks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As per the block log: "the comment has been removed by both the intended target AND an administrator: editor was advised to self-revert and refused" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for persistent disruptive editing. 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) 17:10, 10 June 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 blocking admin is a hypocrite who is prejudiced against me and doesn't think an IP who calls me the most "notorious editor on the wiki" along with other slurs is making personal attacks, didn't remove the comment of a person who called me an "idiot" on the talk page and yet blocks me for for reinstating my own comment only once that was not nearly a personal attack by his own judgement and vandalized by a user, and only reinstated and self reverted by an administrator. It's time Bwilkins should be desysoped for his stupid judgement repeatedly. Btw, I'm very well aware of WP:NOTTHEM and WP:NPA, and inspite of that I'm being forced to write this. So, coming to the actual reason for unblock... unblock me so that I can file an arbcom request against Bwilkins, there's no disruption going on currently for which I should stay blocked, I'll be filing an arbcom request whenever the block expires, an unblock will speed up the process. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:32, 10 June 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.

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:

I did address the reason for block. Bwiklins has handed out a dumb bureaucratic block calling a single revert of my own comment editwarring and disruptive while it should have been handed out to the user who removed my comment; my comment was not at all disruptive either, if not constructive. There's no policy that asks for removal of some one's comments because they are scrutinizing another editor's past actions. Removing that was disruptive to start with.... and I'll like to contest it at arbcom hopefully where he will get equal scrutiny on his current and past actions rather than here. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since the message above doesn't seem to have sunk in, I'll just be blunt; read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR. Making threats to the blocking admin is about the best possible way to ensure you won't be unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:12, 10 June 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.

TopGun, you're going to lose this battle. ArbCom will absolutely not take it up, and even if it did, it wouldn't even censor BWilkins. Please: swallow your pride a bit and admit the comment was an unnecessary ad hominem, forget about what everyone else said, take a few deep breaths, and move on. Sometimes crappy things happen. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The guy is lying about editwarring, WP:NOTTHEM... my foot. Crappy things happen, no wonder all the good users are leaving Wikipedia. It is not just this case that I've been putting up with Bwilkins's behaviour, it has been 2-3 previous cases as well. It is not about my pride, it is about double standards being followed. He asked me to self revert my own comment that was not disruptive in anyway, or he would block... I will reinstate my comments when ever I wish to or when ever disruptive users like DBigXray vandalize them. If I had made any personal attacks, that was one thing, but even then such comments are not removed and this was especially shown by Bwilkins. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:36, 11 June 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 block is a bad block, I do admit my comment might not be constructive to content discussion and that I've been blocked for reinstating it (after a user wrongly blanked it), and I rejected the basis of this block and contest those as I did nothing wrong in reinstating my comment... not remotely a disruptive comment - certainly not blockable disruption. The reviewing admin should check my comment at Talk:Battle of Chawinda before reviewing this block. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This looks like a sensible block to me. Your abusive comment [3] was entirely unhelpful, and you'd been asked to remove it. In the future please take steps to deescalate disagreements rather than throw more fuel on the fire like you did here. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 11 June 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.

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:

Not abusive per blocking admin, unlike the decline reason. [4]. See last request for the rest. --lTopGunl (talk) 5:06 am, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

TG, I'm unblocking you but am also putting you on notice that you'll be blocked for longer durations - without warning - if you persist in templating established users. This wasn't the first time that you've done that. Treading carefully is generally good advice, especially when you're facing the prospect of a site ban. regentspark (comment) 13:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not improperly template anyone, and it did not involve any discussion of my block, I was the one templated improperly. For reference: [5] [6]. This block was about a comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Just be careful what you say and do. This is the second time I've unblocked you and let's hope that it won't be necessary a third time! --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks for the last one really... never wanted one credit going to the already banned user: Lagoo sab. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can some one change my comment about the ban to 'support banning both' with the same reasoning on at WP:ANI on the ban proposal...? Looks like that's the way to go now. If banning me bans another disruptive editor and that's the only way, I should support it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I am unable to do this, as it is actively discouraged to edit another users views on WP:ANI. Mdann52 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, if I didn't explain well, any one doing this ofcourse has my permission to (just copy paste the first comment in the end - I think it is allowed to do so in my block as the discussion concerns my ban). Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What you need to do is ask a) strike my comment in the ban discussion on ANI. b) replace it with (this exact phrase) ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh. Some one strike only the bold part of my comment and append the following at the end:

• Support if both are being banned: Looks like that's the way to go now. If banning me bans another disruptive editor and that's the only way, I should support it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done... not sure if I agree with it though Mdann52 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks alot Mdann52. :] ...feel free to drop in your own views. Every once in a while some one comes up with that proposal to work around and not having to look at edits and see who is actually at fault. Then atleast they should go on with their own plan. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you thinking taking the heap for something you have nothing to do with? DID YOU HOUND DS NO YOU DID NOT so do not agree to this dumb ban. These retarded admins want to drag you into the muck with DS because they know your CIVIL and POLITE and to make DS ahppy why the hell should you suffer for a abusive hounder whos block log prooves his intentions remind the admins that yoU never hounded anyone dont be used as a sacrificial lamb just because admins dont have the balls to block DS indefinately and instead put you into the cell to appease his aggressive attitutde maggog has given in hes shattered under DSs claims of his bias DONT GIVE UP ! 31.52.189.53 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not giving up, ANI is a mob... or atleast they act like one without looking at the edits. So let it be that way and ban us both. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bah its just sad to see civil users like you who contribute positively to wiki being used by admins as a sacrificial offering to appease aggressive users like Darknesshines who no doubt will want you to take the punishment with him its tragic that you have been hounded for nearly half a year now and the fact you had not initiated this makes me even more angry are these admins blind? you never hounded him and never used abusive words like "prick" and "wanker" just really sad admins are too weak to stand upto abusive users and as soon as DS plays the victim they get cold feet and run away from there decision you seem like a man of your word I hope you do come back after 6 months because I know DS will be back good luck with whatever you do mate peace and love 31.52.189.53 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Another 24-hour block~? Has, how many times must I remind you to be extra mindful~?!? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a hard time dealing with hypocrites. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Has, we've talked about this issue several times before and you should know better than to do it again. Remember the time when Raj came to poke you a little and how did you react? If people want to get you into trouble, then your reaction should be to open your mouth to ask any Admin for help or a neutral third party opinion instead of taking it alone... how many times must I remind you that? In any case, should this happen again, you'd better walk away from it, you're wiser than them to know that it is simply not worth it. FYI, I've got a ball-less stalker/harrasser who's stalking/harrassing my edits right now, mum's the word. Email me if you still wanna talk, yeah? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I'll mail you sure... let's see what comes of the IBAN discussion that is going on at ANI first. Some people are around to just complicate the issues, and admins slam the last one to speak. I guess I'll have to play on with that. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, you DO NOT play on~! Ever! This is not about winning or losing here, how many times must I remind you? Damn it, you're not making my job any easier! Has, I see you spiralling down and so is Raj... though you're the civil one, that doesn't give you the right to start to do things their way. You don't fight fire with fire here, don't you get it? They want to play, then let them play by themselves... why must you play along with them? Because sooner or later, they'll get what they deserve when some wise Admin decides that enough is enough, which is not unlike your case right now (see the 1-week block?)! Someone already said below what I've told you before, two wrongs doesn't make one right! Don't you get it? FWIW, I'm really disappointed by you and Raj. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've left Raj alone for some time, though he keeps appearing at the articles I edit, I try to ignore him. The IBAN vio wasn't even a vio. This is kind of supper injunction which is not in the scope of an IBAN. IBAN rules should follow both way. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Have this cup of coffee and relax. Don't stress :) Mar4d (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.. neither this block nor the ANI is going to go anywhere, and even if I disagree Magog seems to be right, arbcom will not be interested either. People like to go for RFA and big up their user rights and block others arbitrarily, but no body likes doing the actual work and reviewing edits, the few who do are thrown up with so much text that they don't block the ones they should and the last one to do something gets one by a passing admin instead of the disruptive one... I can do this all day and cite policies like WP:NOTTHEM and the likes around. Lol. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Got an article to keep you busy, Economy of Rawalpindi :) Sadly, my knowledge of Rawalpindi is quite limited. But being the fourth largest city of Pakistan, I feel that this subject area needs more focus and is currently under covered on Wikipedia. More Rawalpindi articles might be on their way soon. Since you're a Rawalpindian, feel free to improve and expand them. I'm looking for some good sources for the economy article at the moment. Mar4d (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think about improving the Rawalpindi article and perhaps working it up to GA-standard? I know it looks far-fetched but with some hard work, I think we could do some real good changes. The current article is a mess. Mar4d (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The main article is a mess at the moment, will like to improve that too. Will work on this one along when I'm back. Though it'll be slow due to all the conduct disputes. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am blocked till night so I can't go and report, but I'll like to report this IBAN violation... and I hope that this time admins decide to put up an escalating block unlike the last 3 violations that occured in last 2 days. [7] [8] (and many more before - See Magog the Ogre's talk page). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• It has been self reverted [9] but I don't think Darkness Shines has that luxury left anymore after so many incidents as explained on Magog's talk... I'm still looking forward to an action. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Another vioation [10]... commenting on me. The thread about ANI is about the IBAN discussion, I can possibly not violate the IBAN while discussing it. That's an exemption. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Has, please read up on WP:Give 'em enough rope, because the noose around his neck is getting tighter (come to think of it, your recent unblock does ring true with that same rope we're talking about here, so you'd better shape-up or be prepared to ship-out!)), even as we speak. Just walk away from the temptation to retaliate, wil'ya? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If you wade through the history of reports, you'd know how much rope's been wasted by now... lol. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

{{admin help}} So I'd be blocked on reporting the vios, and DS is allowed to chat with his friends about me. making direct references to me? [11]. Revoke their talkpage access or increase the block length if you really do mean to enforce the ban. It's time you know who's the one making violations on regular basis even within the blocks. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And how is that a violation? He's not commenting on you, but rather stating how he intends to behave in the future... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

He made a direct reference to me as "the editor I am IBANed With", and he was not clarifying with an administrator, neither was he reporting or defending. Random exemptions? So I'm allowed to make references in the chatter too where I reveal my intentions or something? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The interaction ban prevents your from interacting with and commenting on each other; it doesn't prohibit either of you from merely mentioning the other, when opportune — DS is merely saying he'll no longer edit the articles you have already edited, he has to mention you to clearly indicate which articles his promise will refer to. This is starting to appear vexatious litigation to me. Do not force me to revoke your talk page privs. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification is ok, but does that extend to normal chatter with other editors? No. That is limited to an admin. Well then, I'll be glad to quote this section if some one decides to block me on the same. By the way you removed my whole comment from ANI, which was defending me against the full ban on me, the only edit that can even be take as the vio is the change of the bolded part. You should reinstate the rest. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

chill out mate. i know it's difficult but that's my best advice. go out, drink some beers and pick up some women. it really helps :P  altetendekrabbe  09:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! Looks like that's what I'll have to do for the week ;) --lTopGunl (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Violation of an interaction ban (this edit). 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. regentspark (comment) 21:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm conflicted about this block. He arguably was talking about enforcement of the ban, which is OK per WP:IBAN ("Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum."). The example provided immediately above, however, is unquestionably a violation by DS. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How I read it is this: his original comment on ANI was defending the ban against himself, which was then changed to support a site ban against both - this was no problem. Unfortunately, he later removed support for himself, and further commented on the ban for DS - which therefore were both past a violation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think he may have gotten the impression that such a comment was OK because DS had been getting away with it for so long. Two wrongs don't make a right, surely, but DS's violations have been in the article-space; this was actually talking about how to reshape the ban. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, but this does not apply to IBAN when we are defining what is 'wrong' ourselves. If it is not being enforced on one part, enforcing it for the other is the only thing wrong. I did not violate it anyway, it was about reporting previous ban violations and support for an action which in this case was a site ban. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what impression he got, a comment asking for a site ban of DS is a definite violation of his interaction ban. Asking for a larger ban is neither asking for a clarification not appealing the ban. (See Wikipedia:Interaction_ban#Interaction_ban.) For the interaction ban to work, we need to enforce it quickly and fairly, and I believe this is the appropriate action given the history of all this. Talking about site bans makes little sense if there is not attempt to enforce the lesser restriction. --regentspark (comment) 23:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I did argue with you about not removing the IBAN, that actually was removing the restriction, should have blocked me on that too? Asking to impose a larger restriction due to violations is a clear cut report and involvement in the report's discussion, not a violation. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the comment in question a little differently. I think his comment is taken out of context. If you read TG's comment at Site ban proposal while ignoring "Support for DS" for a moment to understand that the comment was about the ineffectiveness of the IBAN and its enforcement and that is allowed per WP:IBAN as it says "... addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum..." is an exception. And it was in reply to a proposal that was made by Bwilkins; which I take it like this: ... since their issues are still popping up even after IBAN, let's block them... . So in reply to that, if User A says that IBAN is not working because User B is violating it and block User B, I don't find it a violation, but again its my thought. Apart from that I find his support for DS ironic, because I guess its the first time I am seeing, he supported him. --SMS ^Talk 08:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Support for DS" meant supporting a full ban for DS, and it is obviously in context. RP read the bolded part of comment but did not read the full comment which is all about the IBAN discussion! --lTopGunl (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

TG, any comment you make about the other editor, that is not specifically related to clarification about the ban is a ban violation. I'm going to quote the relevant text from WP:Interaction ban for you: Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason. Supporting an escalation of the ban is not included in this and is a comment on the other editor that is not allowed by the interaction ban (and is definitely against the spirit of an interaction ban). I'm trying to keep both of you on Wikipedia but, if you don't know when discretion is required, I'm not sure this is going to work. --regentspark (comment) 13:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're quoting the wrong part. This comes under reporting the IBAN and contesting it. I reported it, DS appealed it at the ANI. I clarified my report and lack of enforcement and asked to take action, in this case it was an escalated ban. There's no violation there. If you read my comment, it is still the same as it was before except the bolded part, and none of it comes under a violation. It will be against natural justice if I'm not allowed to talk about the IBAN and the other editor when every thing under that section is a discussion of IBAN. I'll note another thing though, why wasn't this block a 24 hr block to start with, instead of a week's, given this was my first block for the IBAN? DS was given such escalation, wasn't he... so to speak of double standards. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, I think the interpretation by regentspark here is a bit rigid - let me ask this. If he had said, "I support having this restriction except for on me" - would that have been a violation? Because it's saying exactly the same thing, just not explicitly stating the name. If not, may I ask why we think such verbal calisthenics are to be encouraged? On the other hand, I think TopGun has not done everything he could have to avoid a violation - Darkness Shines' behavior aside. Even if we are to assume this block is unfair as I stated above, perhaps TopGun could simply wait out the week and realize that sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you: this isn't about appropriate "punishment" but about enforcement of a rule whose application had deteriorated among both editors, and getting both editors to realize that we really mean it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I could not possibly anticipate that I would be blocked for participating in the discussion... so you are right, I did not do "everything I could" to avoid this comment, which however is not a violation per not only specifications of the IBAN itself but also per common sense. If you do agree that the only purpose of this block is to sit out so that I know how much administrators mean to enforce a ban they've so far failed to, this block would then violate WP:POINT and WP:COOLDOWN. Wikilawyering is something often cited to the blocked users, I guess this time I'll like to cite it to the blocking admin for the reasoning of his block to work around both the spirit and the letter of the ban. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:30, 12 June 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:

Discussion of IBAN in an IBAN discussion (in this case escalating the ban on DS) is not a violation!! Have you read WP:IBAN? Regentspark is wrong. This comes under reporting previous ban violations and escalating due to that. As previously clarified at ANI, supper injunctions are not in the scope of IBAN! This block should be reverted as "not a vio". I find it ironic that DS always comes up with a pointing finger at me, first reporting me and then calling it a vio when I contest... this is the same thing done now, he reported this "vio" on his talk page even though I clarified before hand at ANI that my participation in that discussion was not a vio, and yet that is left as ok... which ofcourse makes me assume that there is a silent consensus for that to be OK. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

IBANned users may not comment on each other or on each other's actions, except to report a violation of the ban itself or to defend themselves when reported; in this case, you were quite clearly commenting on DS, but you were neither reporting him nor being reported. This block is, therefore, reasonable and warranted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:52, 13 June 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.

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:

I was actually reporting him - reported him to an admin. He appealed the sanction he was given... I was in the right to further support action which was as a result of the violation. In anycase why is my block not following the same escalation that was given to DS? Why am I blocked for a week right away on the first violation even if we consider it one? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The edit in question may have been a violation of the interaction ban. Perhaps it was. It probably was. But it was entirely reasonable to believe that it wasn't, or at least not a violation that would lead to a one-week block. Note that this is not a license to try to discover how close to the fence you can go without being electrocuted. I'm sure admins in the future will be less forgiving toward actions of this nature, given even the brief amount of history between you and DS that I cared to read. From now on, if you think it might be a violation of your interaction ban, consider it one. The vast majority of articles and discussions on Wikipedia have not been edited by DarknessShines. Try contributing to one of those. -- tariqabjotu 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you be interested in continuing the mediation? If you were to agree to not edit the topic while mediating and mediate in good faith, I could propose this to the blocking admin. Sunray (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been unblocked, I did not violate the IBAN. I will still try to continue the mediation, but I will oppose any topic ban on me. That will certainly not help (this doesn't mean I'll willfully start disputes on the same content elsewhere, I actually have been opposing doing that all along - see the closure of a DRN that was started by JCAla during the mediation). Also see my comment at the ANI proposal. I hope you understand that I can not help in the case of conduct dispute that is going along, as I do not start the issues, I only report them to avoid for complications and to avoid getting it thrown on me later. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

it's been two weeks now, and I have yet to see a valid reference for the claim you supported re. the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being considered an act of state-sponsored terrorism. Would you mind if I considered your deafening silence an agreement to removing that absurd statement from the article?

Regards, O.Koslowski (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, now that I think of it, it does not come under this topic to start with, rather under State terrorism. Feel free to remove. I'll add it in the State terrorism article later. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you, it's been done. Have a good one! -- O.Koslowski (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a ref link. Please click the IMF (International Monetary Fund) link you would have seen those updated figures. Not only that you should refer to the recent Pakistan economic survey at finance.gov.pk for outgoing FY 11-12.

Regards, Pk-user (talk)

Hi, please use edit summaries when you change figures (esp. without adding references). We're trying to get the article to Featured status, so can't leave any original research there. Do you mean to say that the reference already in the article got updated? If that is so, I'll check the links (an edit summary would have been just fine in that case). If not, please add the source that goes with the figures. Your concerns are being dealt with at the talkpage by now I think. I'll respond there if necessary. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar by Anupam copied to user page. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		A long deserved barnstar for User:TopGun! Thanks for all your contributions to South Asian related articles on Wikipedia! May God bless you and your family in abundance! Your friend, AnupamTalk 08:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your recognition. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message I got when editing "History of Pakistan". I do write, mostly minor edits, under 'Wiki_dr_mahmad' but am too lazy to login at times. Sorry for this. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.211.53 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you seem to be an old user then... better log in so that you can keep an eye on the articles you edit through the watchlist :] --lTopGunl (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Some years ago, I had gradually brought "His. Pak" article to a Pak-centric narrative that read with proper balance - showing its Western regions' contributions as much as of Eastern. You may see in 'View history' archive how it looked like that time. Then some Indo-centric enthusiast interfered with it so much, before he was blocked, that Pak-region looked like a back yard colony of India through out the ages. I am having a look at this article after quite some time and, surprisingly, seeing that some not all of my subsections are revived again. I shall remain in touch with you for any help, thanks for the offer. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. See you around. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I will gladly join Wiki project Pakistan and contribute as much as I can. :) Pk-user (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hope to see you around. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar by Dave1185 copied to user page. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

For the kind words on ANI, thank you. Also, the reason why I had been trying to help you and Raj to get along was due to a real life scenario of my two friends - one was from Pakistan and the other was from Punjab, but I won't go into detajls. Maybe another time, yeah? For now, I just want to say "thank you". And I assume that Raj is reading this, I forgive you and won't retaliate against you for whatever you did to me on ANI and on WP. FWIW. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome - and that means alot. I've been hounded quite much, so I could empathize with you. Btw, Pakistanis and Punjabis are not always the opposite (but got what you meant) ;) ...cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it really doesn't matter because people from either East or West Punjab are still Punjabis, but people outside are just too blinded and/or misled by their own political leaders to realise that. See China and Taiwan now? Those two combined can be a force to be reckoned with and I see the same thing for Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. All brothers but made to hate each other... for what? I mean, their nationality might be diiferent but their race is the same. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

They did nothing but rioted other wise too. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar by Essaa Khan copied to user page. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Great Works you have Done here !! EssaKhan (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) --lTopGunl (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi TG! I have declined deletion of this because it was leading to a page so G8 was not eligible. Cheers! →TSU ^tp* 10:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That is an incorrect title (name of one industry redirecting to a completely different one)... I thought it qualified under the "bad title" criteria. Will RFD it. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI. --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Saw that, thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry but I have removed your vote from this. At deletion process, nom is itself considered as a delete vote and if you add again then it becomes double. The thing is different at RfAs where nominators can support the candidate but not here. Cheers! :) →TSU ^tp* 03:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I mostly comment on AFDs and it's done there often... it already stated "as proposer" so I don't see why it could, in anycase, be taken as a double !vote (as it's not a vote, rather the explanation with it is what matters). Won't readd it though, it's not a big deal. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have seen that too, usually when nominator adds some additional concern related to the article (or other namespace page), they prepend it with Delete, as nominator or Delete, as proposer. --SMS ^Talk 06:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This kind of vote is (rarely, and almost always improperly) used in discussions to objecting to some specific arguments "for keep" raised by other voters. Here it seems not adding anything to the discussion... it is just a vote, and, as said by TSU, the nom is itself a delete vote. Cavarrone (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've seen some use of adding a delete as a proposer... it means the proposer is actually supporting the delete and not just nominating because he might be unsure (which is some times the case). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem TG. I removed the comment because the nom itself strongly suggests deletion. Thanks and have a nice day! →TSU ^tp* 08:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi I found Rawalpindi page without any montage.So, I created this one.:) As I'm not a native..I'm not sure of any more important landmarks etc..Please inform me if any other exists.I shall update the image.Please consider placing the image in the article.Regards TheStrikeΣagle 10:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. added it. These are historical landmarks.. I'll like to add the modern skyline or something, will find those images. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I had already responded on talk page, and please do not revert, as it cannot be generalize to all the Muslims in India, Just for instance if any non-muslim in Pakistan raised slogan of any other country, does it applies to all the non-muslims. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Will continue the discussion there, what I raised was there's no source saying that there were only these two instances when the slogan was used. See my suggestion at talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi TonGun. Just to let you know, you reported User:92.4.184.70 to AIV for vandalism when the issue was a content dispute. I blocked the user for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but WP:EWN would have been a better place to report. Thanks for your efforts, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I felt fake editsummaries were in play. He removed a large part of content as "bogus". Some of his other edits might be plain editwar. Thanks for taking care of it though. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough - it's not really a problem (anyway, it was your AIV report which led me to find it). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

yeah i just wanted to give u an award even though i am a newbee but i am still gonne give u this for all your hard work and thx and please message me when u get this it would mean the world to me and thx i really appreciate it wwecenarules 06:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The article Rape in Northeast India has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article currently looks like a POV-pushing nightmare.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try adding more views to it, but at the moment, I'm blocked. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to copy the article in its current form to your sandbox? Just as temporary backup in case the article gets removed. Mar4d (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually any one can object to prod.. see if you can add other views to it and if that would justify your removal of prod, otherwise I'll do it after I'm unblocked. I don't see any objections on the talk page btw, so don't know what all there is POV... (but sure copy it to my sand box too, it's not likely to get deleted though... content disputes are dealt with editing, not deletion). --lTopGunl (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rape in Northeast India is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape in Northeast India until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)