User talk:TopGun

Hindustani

When you are reverted, you need to take the issue to the talk page, not fight over it. Please read WP:BOLD for an illustration of how this works.

Meanwhile, you're adding what appears to be your personal opinion, without references. We use refs on WP. AFAICT, your opinion does not match the historical record -- but again, that is a matter for the refs to decide. — kwami (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

These are not my 'opinions', they are logical facts which the page itself refers to & I also tagged a reference with the edit. Actually instead of asking me to the talk page to "first discuss" after reverting, was a bad idea since you not agreeing with my edit already means that we should go to talk: WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus".

Anyway, already added a discussion on the bottom of the talk page of the article under a relevant topic which you appear not to have noticed. Hope to resolve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanhn5 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's up to the proposer, not to the reverter, to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposal. Please read WP:BOLD.

"Logic" has nothing to do with it: we base our articles on sources. Please read WP:RS.

Correct, I did not recognize you, since you signed in under a different name. Please choose one name and stick to it, or people generally will fail to recognize you.

BTW, I did reply to those comments, not realizing it was you. If you think Gandhi invented the term "Hindustani", may I suggest you read up on the history of India. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That being said, "first discuss" is still a 'not helpful' option as mentioned in WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus" which I happened to see after reading WP:BOLD. Logic here means consistency, which is an essential part of the informative writing. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was having some difficulty setting up the username with certain symbols due to which there was such inconvenience. As for the term being "used" and not "invented" by Gandhi, the edit I made itself included the reference tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, your edit was factually wrong. It was also unreferenced. Any unreferenced material may be removed. I removed it. Again, if you make a claim, it's up to your to demonstrate it. That's what would be logical. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you keep on repeating, it was actually referenced. The edit had a tag to main Hindi-Urdu controversy. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a reference, that's a link. And a link to WP! We can't use WP to reference WP.

You addition was, Although the name "Hindustani" is not as neutral as "Hindi-Urdu" since it gives reference to the Hindu religion/culture creating a bias against Muslim Urdu speakers, especially in Pakistan. You are giving an opinion, yet stating it as fact, and even claiming here that it is fact! I think you need to explore the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion'. Second, the bizarre claim that use of this Muslim-Urdu word 'creates bias against Muslim Urdu speakers, esp. in Pakistan' certainly needs to be ref'd. If it's so offensive to Muslims, why would Muslims have coined it?

Distinguish fact from opinion, and reference your claims. It doesn't matter the subject, them's the rules. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My reference was to the modern day subcontinent while talking of the bias. The controversy article was already well linked, hence the addition was supported.

Since the discussion is bending more towards the article, it would be easier to continue it along on the article discussion page. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

For record and to prevent confusion, copied the duplicate discussion from kwami (talk). --lTopGunl (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Siachen conflict

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. the original figure of 3000 was changed to 6000 (even the source u have included shows 3000 and not 6000) do you have any other reason for [edit] on the article Siachen conflict ??--dBigXray (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)--dBigXray (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not an act of vandalism. It was driven from the fact that Indian army ordered double the no of outfits as compared to the Pakistan army after they got information through their intelligence source.You should follow Wikipedia:Goodfaith policy while handling such edits. Also, please use the article talk page if you reverted me for something related to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• well your statement clearly shows that you dont even bother to read the mentioned sources completely , and give lame excuses for your editings that can very well be called Vandalism. Your arguement of Claiming to be editing on Wikipedia:Goodfaith will not work then. I encourage you to read the 3 page article again . it clearly states that Pak ordered 150 and india ordered double that is 300 . it does not mean India has 6000 soldiers. please check it again without reverting and editing Wikipedia articles or you can be blocked again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBigXray (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your mention of 3000 troops was not correct too. Infact the reference itself indicated 800 Pakistani troops. You should read what you link as references. This is not vandalism, its verification. And stop telling me of getting blocked unless you have a good reason. Do not edit my talk page for article related issues. Use the article's discussion page. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice

i suggest you re-write the following paragraph you added on the "sinking of pns ghazi"-page [1]. you should never copy-paste from a source as this constitutes copyright violation. copyright violators usually get banned indefinitely here om wikipedia. don't let that happen to you. you need to formulate the content with your *own words* and *own structure*. read the following wikipedia policy attentively and closely, Wikipedia:Copy-paste.-- mustihussain (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to re-write some of the content on the first edit. I've re-written the rest now. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

it's still not good enough. you have merely paraphrased parts of the paragraph i.e. substituted some words with others, keeping the overall verbatim structure [2]. it is clearly mentioned in Wikipedia:Copy-paste that this is not allowed. i would have written something like this:

An independent testimony stems from an Egyptian officer who claimed that the Indian ships were docked at the Visakhapatnam harbour when the explosions from the supposed Indian sinking of Ghazi occurred <:ref>http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/1971navalwar/lossofghazi.htm</ref> <:ref>http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/1971navalwar/lossofghazi.htm</ref>

now compare my rewrite with your rewrite. you see the difference? both the *words* and the *structure* in my rewrite are different because i wrote creatively and originally from scratch, with my own words, the facts *i* wanted to present. as a starter: my *initial* advice to you is to firstly read the source, then throw it away. think about what you read in own words, and then formulate *only* the facts you want to present in own words. be original, selective and creative.-- mustihussain (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... let me give it another try. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Got your point. Edited. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

it's better but you're still paraphrasing (and you copied me!). also it's better to quote than to paraphrase. change the text to the following:

An independent testimony stems from an Egyptian officer who claimed that the Indian ships were docked at the Visakhapatnam harbour when the explosions from the supposed Indian sinking of Ghazi occurred, and that "it was not until about an hour after the explosion that two Indian naval ships were observed leaving harbour".<:ref>http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/1971navalwar/lossofghazi.htm</ref>

always use quotation marks when quoting, never paraphrase. keep it *short* and *simple*. don't worry, you'll get better at writing from scratch *if* you put an effort to it.-- mustihussain (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, copied your example because it was different from the source text. Changed the article now to the version you gave above. Thanks for helping. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

good, but there are some issues with your latest edit here [3]. give it a thought, and think how to write it *totally* from scratch. also write shorter, less detailed. however, you have made some progress.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this one from memory instead of reviewing the source alongside. Yet, the content was so full of factual statements that it still some how shows some similarity to the original content. Trying to "type in" for any edits I do now. :]

memorizing is not the point. you need to select the important points you want to write about. let me help you out:

• pakistan retaliated
• some indian boats were destroyed
• the indians had taken countermeasures

that's it. these are the most important points... written in my own words. the rest is blah blah. *read*, *think*, *select*, *formulate* in your own words. no paraphrasing. no copy-pasting. write creatively and originally from scratch with your own words, own structure, and own understanding. -- mustihussain (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Current revisions of these articles are very biased or pro-Indian. Trying to tone them to neutral and put in some content from the Pakistani side. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

use this code for the source used in the first sentence of your edit at the "operation trident"-article (see the code by clicking edit):

• <:ref name = pak_info>Pakistan Military Consortium : Operations in the Arabian Sea</ref>

now, for the second sentence just use:

• <:ref name = pak_info />

now, the source will have the same enumeration.-- mustihussain (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahh.. thanks! Fixed the rest too. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

there are two broken sources on the page you need to fix. i suspect that <:ref name = "Pakdef" /> should be renamed to <:ref name = pak_info /> as they both denote the same source. i'm not sure but investigate it.-- mustihussain (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A tip

It looks like from this edit of yours[4] that you are unaware of Wikipedia:Canvassing, FYI. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It was done through wikipedia talkpage. Its not called canvassing. You need a better understanding of that. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You should re-read that. And here's something else for you: Help:Talk_page#Indentation. Jesanj (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are misusing the statement about WP:Canvassing. Read the appropriate notification section:

"On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)..."

Misleading claims such as this come in WP:Harassment. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Those examples are not exhaustive. You should try reading the first sentence of your quote again. And here's how to deal with harassment: Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment. Jesanj (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And I told a concerned editor who was participating in similar other topics. You are really really hard at hearing --lTopGunl (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. That creates a potential selection bias in your favor. Jesanj (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That way you can go on and create controversy & conspiracy theories. You should assume that every one here on wikipedia is not a part of a huge conspiracy against you. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources in your recent editings

on Operation Brasstacks how can you include http://pakistanlink.org/Commentary/2006/March06/03/02.HTM as a citation ? please refer Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

Also one of your major source (the citation Pakinfo http://www.pakdef.info ) for your recent editings also falls under the same category. It has already been rejected by WIkipedia as a NON RELIABLE SOURCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_62#pakdef.info .

Kindly do not use such References for editing on wikipedia and also remove the editings you have done using the above NON RELIABLE SOURCE pakdef.info and others on various wiki pages that you have edited recently. thanks --dBigXray (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

These sources are not self published. They have been quoted widely on wikipedia. Before you remove any text, see comments in the edits. In so many places you have recklessly removed text which so many other sources confirmed. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you Disagree with (the citation Pakinfo http://www.pakdef.info ) that has already been rejected by WIkipedia as a NON RELIABLE SOURCE then i invite you to please go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_62#pakdef.info . if you are still not happy with that you can take that matter to the noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and get your case heard, and you can give whatever arguements or counter arguements in support of making http://www.pakdef.info a reliable source. As going by the current status pak def info is non reliable source. PLEASE REFRAIN from making edits by using non reliable source as it will only weaken your case and any other WIKIPEDIA EDITOR will revert your edits with all your hard work gone waste. I would suggest you to first get pakdef info, cleared by WIKIPEDIA before using it (as it is already blacklisted) inspite of whatever you may say . regards --dBigXray (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The results you've called as current status were inconclusive and a current RSN on going on the RSN noticeboard will decide this matter. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• RSN concludes source as not a non-RS. [5] --lTopGunl (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sinking of PNS Ghazi

While your first modification was assumed to be a mistake but your re-posting and reverting of proper edits seems to be a clear case of POV insertion and Wikipedia:Vandalism. Why have you modified text while references remain same? Why you keep using a forum as your main source? Repeated infringement will be reported to Admins. And finally dBigXray has raised a very valid point. Forum PakDef is NOT an WP:RS. Swift&silent (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I cited neutral sources to the article. You have reverted it masking it as vandalism. Review the sources before you make such disruptive edits.

Other sources which were left unchanged mentioned what the new edits said. I just reviewed them. You're repeatedly reverting text all over wikipedia. This does not help. WP:ownership

You've also edit Indo-pak naval war article without reviewing an on going discussion on the talk page. This is not the way thing work here. Read WP:BRD. All the information was well cited and mentioned/dicussed on the talkpage. This kind of disruptive editing constitutes vandalism.

See the talk pages for the discussion already in place. All explanations have been given there and in the edit summaries. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You removed the properly cited part where it was stated that Mines have a counter making it impossible for them to destroy the laying vessel. The most plausible explanation, reflected in almost all of the sources is that the depth charges by Vikrant caused an internal fire in Ghazni causing its store of mines to blast taking it down. This is echoed in the Russian citation too. Furthermore you removed the references to Rediff, Hindu and Tribune. Needless to say all three are WP:RS.

Anyway, I tried to locate the 'Raid' part you complained about in Naval war article but can find no problem or suggestion that it was attacked by someone else. Changed the Conflicts page's 1965 section to 'Sources Opined' meaning that it was their opinion. Lets just be Happy man! Swift&silent (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You just look at what is removed and don't see what is added instead of it. The sources sited told that the submarine was blown from inside out. Review the sources. Also, I've not thrown away any information. Indian version has the Indian POV given. You can add to it. Rediff and Hindu are Indian citations and not considered to be neutral.

The raid part clearly suggests contradiction, see article talk page.

Dispute is a neutral word used all over wikipedia. It is very lame to editwar over that.

Use article talkpage for this discussion to prevent confusion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So according to you Indian newspapers are biased while forum PakDef is credible!!! Swift&silent (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No. They are counted as Indian & Pakistani sources instead of third party sources! --lTopGunl (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And PakDef forum is a third party source? Swift&silent (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, its a Pakistani source, just like the Indian websites are quoted. The over all impression should be a NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been told many times and by many editors that PakDef is basically a forum and has been determined to be a Non:Rs in source list. Swift&silent (talk)11:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

please read above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hassanhn5#Use_of_Wikipedia:Verifiability.23Self-published_sources_in_your_recent_editings Just because a statement does not please you is no justification for calling it a POV you are supposed to give proper proof with NEUTRAL citation before calling it as POV. Please understand that by using Non RELIABLE sources you are EXTENSIVELY damaging the neutrality and credibility of WIKIPEDIA --dBigXray (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Other sources have been given in this article. Your comment is of no importance here. Also, see article's talkpage.

ref: Till, Geoffrey (2004). Seapower: a guide for the twenty-first century. Great Britain: Frank Cass Publishers. p. 179. ISBN 0-7146-8436-8. Retrieved 2010-05-28.

these references have been disruptively removed by the above user without any explaination. [6] See WP:vandalism --lTopGunl (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What ? Please see clearly, mate. it is you lTopGunl (talk) who have deliberately removed those citations. that is not me check the name of editor in your link. you yourself are showing your VANDALISTIC changes, Thats nice, and a good thing to start with. i appreciate your point. --dBigXray (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of LYING outright, check out the heading of this section, and then check the link I gave in my last comment. Those references have been removed by the above user. After you've done that and cooled off, see WP:harassment & and stop flaming or I'll be forced to report you. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not get offended. you are free to do whatever you want. The admins will also see your history logs also in the process and a lot of dead bodies will fall from your closet. :) --dBigXray (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

dBigXray I have checked your edit history and I must say am impressed by your constant struggle against vandalism. Check your Page for a surprise ;). Swift&silent (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Blaming someone of vandalism when its not the case is clearly a personal attack wp:harassment. Those references were removed by swift&silent as the link shows. Don't sermon me about not getting offended after posting offensive messages on my talk page. FYI: My history logs are clean from inflammatory attacks. I will ask you not to edit my talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Both have been warned. Hassan, report this straight to WP:ANI should this persist. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for sorting this out. Hope it's fixed without a report. I've not yet reported at WP:Wikiquette assistance either, because I assume User:dBigXray listens to your advice. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Don't assume too much, I'm already at the brink of nominating him to be BANNED if he continues to behave in this manner. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside, Swift&silent (talk · contribs) is being investigated as a possible sock of a BANNED editor, see → WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keeps getting better and better. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with this article Hassan. If you check this article's history you will find that I was editing it some time ago with more sources giving different view-points, but was being reverted by editors like Wikireader and UplinkAnsh for nationalistic reasons. I did try to get neutral parties on board but it seems nobody is interested in helping in Indo-Pak disputes so I quit editing it to avoid edit warring with the above two editors. How are your attempts going? --Hj108 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah. These guys are now stalking my contributions list and editing every article I edit to push their pov. I've already lodged a complaint. Lets see. I'm just trying to get the bias out of those articles and adding verifiable information only. Looks like I've satisfied them on the talk pages of Operation Dwarka & Sinking of PNS Ghazi but its a long way to go. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to help you out but I'm determined to concentrate on my studies for this year, I'll keep your profile in my watch list. A few interesting sources for you that I've kept:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=ZcejlMRYNAAC&pg=PA179&dq=PNS+Ghazi&ei=LKdDSKG0H4KijgGs1qG-BQ&sig=9YcFuLJttkAY3wIH965XTx6eU1Y#v=onepage&q=PNS%20Ghazi&f=false - "Seapower: a guide for the twenty-first century" By Geoffrey Till. "...PNS Ghazi... itself sank enroute under somewhat mysterious circumstances."
• http://sify.com/news/the-truth-behind-the-navy-s-sinking-of-ghazi-news-columns-kfztj3bhjeh.html - "The truth behind the Navy's 'sinking' of Ghazi", by Lt General JFR Jacob, (retd) (published 2010-05-25)
• http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/11962-fate-pns-ghazi.html#post163986 - an article by Sandeep Unnithan on the sinking of PNS Ghazi. States that experts concluded the submarine sank as result of an internal explosion. Article is copied/pasted into forum post, original source needs to be found.
• http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/jan/agosta.htm - "An Agosta Submarine for Pakistan" by Lt Gen (Retd) SARDAR F.S. LODI. States the PNS Ghazi "blew up, presumably on its own mine."
• http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/1971navalwar/lossofghazi.htm - "Operations in the bay of Bengal - the loss of the PNS/M Ghazi".
• http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/ghazi.html - "The Ghazi that defied the Indian Navy", by Ghani Eirabie. Mentions a quote from a book written by an Indian officer that the submarine most likely sank due to accidentally passing over the mines it laid earlier.
• http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/mar/maritime.htm - "Maritime Awareness and Pakistan Navy" by Commander (Retd) Muhammad AZAM KHAN
• http://www.ussdiablo.com/TheDiabloAdvocatepage11.htm - website dedicated to the USS Diablo (later re-named PNS Ghazi after transfer to Pakistan). Webpage contains images of the submarine, including a sonar image and a sketch of the sunken submarine. The webpage also states the following: "Above is a sketch done by Mr Sandeep Unnithan who recently wrote an article about the loss of the Ghazi/Diablo in the India Today magazine 1/26/04. It shows how our old ship now rests on the bottom in 32 meters of water. It appears an internal explosion occurred in the FTR."
• http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030824/spectrum/main6.htm - "Of a glorious Indian ship & sunken enemy submarine" by Trilochan Singh Trewn. An Indian article which states the sinking of the submarine was unintentional and due to the routine launching of depth charges when a warship is passing through areas likely to have enemy submarines present.

Obviously the important part of the above list is the General JFR Jacob article (in bold), where an Indian Army General states that he was told by a senior Indian Navy officer the PNS Ghazi had sank due to an "act of God" but to stay quiet about it so the Indian Navy could claim a kill. I've just checked, the article is still online. Indian editors I mentioned above claimed this to be a "fringe theory" and that Jacob is an army general so is not an authority on the navy, so kept removing the source from the article. Like I said, I asked for help on these noticeboards but nobody was interested:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_13#PNS_Ghazi_article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Addition_of_O.R._at_the_PNS_Ghazi_article

Hope this helps, good luck to you and leave me a message if you need me. I won't be editing much for a while, but I'm not leaving yet. --Hj108 (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the sources. As of now, I've handled PNS Ghazi topic and its sinking article with neutral sources. I'll use these if some one comes up with another claim. I'm also not a regular because of studies. Feel free to email^[7] or contact me on my talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A discrepancy

can you have a look on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_Navy#Pak_Navy_Northern_Naval_Command_.28NNC.29_Eastern_Naval_Command_.28ENC.29_.3F.3F seems to me a Discrepancy. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.paknavy.gov.pk ← check here if it verifies else remove. Also, all the wiki links made to those commands point to Indian Navy articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I had already looked on that link above. it does not say about commands or may be i could not find it there. Well it seems someone had copied the infobox from Indian Navy article and forgot to change, hence the result. Do have a look to improve it when u r free.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Just checked the rest of the article. The commands do exist. Just linked wrong. Remove the links. Wikipedia:NOTCOMPULSORY --lTopGunl (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• about Wikipedia:NOTCOMPULSORY i thought may be you aare interested to improve that article sadly i am wrong. never mind.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am. But I thought we were last advised on a noticeboard to stay away from each other's talk pages... or are we best friends now? Anyway, Not compulsory part was for you too. Either you do it if you feel like or you don't. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• U got it. :) well we are not best friends yet, but whats wrong in trying Wishing you A Happy Diwali. regards --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing better if we can edit mutually without grudges (I've fixed those wikilinks and replied on article's talk). Probably our RSN is also resolved (both turning out to be reliable). Enjoy the festival ! --lTopGunl (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Operation Trident (1971)

Your recent edits to Operation Trident (1971) have been reverted because you restored the article to a previous version of your edits without following due process. In the process, you overwrote a number of corrections others had made. You also added back casualty info that was not part of the operation to the infobox. This has been disputed and is being disucussed on the discussion page of the article. Please don't attempt to undo these edits without first resolving these issues on the article's discussion page.Skcpublic (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The due process is WP:BRD. If you get reverted comment on talk instead of re-reverting. It is the responsibility of the one who gets reverted to present his case on the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to follow that same due process. You changes were reverted first and you have the responsibility for getting consensus before you re-revert others changes.Skcpublic (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Check out those dates and the date you changed my edits. It was according to the consensus. I was asked to get approved the pakdef site as a reliable source to make those changes on the talk page, which I did and edited. You are the one here who edited content. I'm open for debate on the talk page of article. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't revert a single edit. You reverted back to arbitrarily previous revision. You undid info on attack on PNS Shah Jahan for which I had added 3 citations in my edit timed "01:55, 26 October 2011". You also did not get consensus on your infobox edits for including info on the retaliaion. Skcpublic (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your first edit to which you didn't reply on talk and instead made more edits. along with the revert the text I added in infobox was cited and is under consideration on talkpage and was not the purpose of my reverts. See article edit history for reference of who edited first and got reverted. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The comment on your edit of "07:54, 26 October 2011" says I reverted all your changes in a go since you did it in parts which would take manual effort. Just because it requires manual effort is not an excuse for reverting multiple edits. If you aren't willing to put in the effort, you shouldn't be editing at all. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reverting. You made no attempt to improve the edit that you are contending. If there is an alternate viewpoint, you need to work on incorporating that constructively into the article. --Skcpublic (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There were significant issues to warrant the full revert. You changed the fueling facilities destroyed to 'a fuel tank' and made changes at so many other places in the same way. Also, the infobox discussion was already going on, if you really are aware of all the rules of WP:reverting, you should know its wrong to edit that. About the comment, I can't seem to find the word 'manual' on both this and the article talk page (give the diff if you would like)... so i deleted that comment before you read? Doesn't that mean you can't talk about it? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Read the revision history on the article. Your most recent comment stamped "07:54, 26 October 2011‎" is "I reverted all your changes in a go since you did it in parts which would take manual effort." This clearly violates rules on reverting. Each of my edits was limited in scope. If you had an issue with the fuel tank edit, you need to either constructively edit or revert that specific edit with justification. You chose not to selectively revert each edit in order to bypass the 3-revert rule that you are so selectively quoting. On the infobox, you undid the edit by DBigXray first on "07:55, 16 October 2011". Heal thyself. --Skcpublic (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, found it. Yes, as I said, it was not an issue in itself. There were multiple issues. The rest of your edits were already discussed and had a consensus of getting the source approved, which I did. The infobox was already being debated upon. That makes some issue or other with almost all your edits. Manually editing each would still cause the same revert maybe leaving a few sentences. So it was better to discuss and then replace content manually to the current version. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point, you've lost the plot. (1) You reverted the infobox edit of user:DBigXray first without due process. (2) I added 3 citations on the PNS Shah Jahan damage, 2 of which were neutral citations (against your possibly biased citation of pakdef, which must be used-with-caution per your own words on source approval. (3) I added date to the retaliation. You've undone all of this blindly and are stuck on justifying why you can't be bothered with making selective, constructive edits by clarifying issues you identify. --Skcpublic (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The due process was over. The source got approved so I edited as per consensus which asked me to get it approved. My words were caution is involved and not that the source should be used by caution, so donot misquote me. Even if we do take caution, you can not only refer to the previous discussion subjecting it to the approval of the source, but also, the source is fairly reliable since it has been quoted in various neutral books. The citations you added were in dispute. Thats called wp:brd which you didn't follow. The only thing that got removed was the date (as in coherence with my last comment) which can be manually added to the current version with more ease rather than manually editing every thing for that single edit. So there was no blind reverting carried out here. I guess this topic is moving towards the article issues rather than my reverts now, so the better discussion place would be article's talkpage. As for my reverts, I've explained, nothing was unwarranted. Since you eagerly presented me with WP:reverting, you should also see the section of the article WP:STATUSQUO. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute on Operation Trident (1971)

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 "Operation Trident (1971)". Thank you. --Skcpublic (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Content

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 99.173.23.58 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for informing me, the browser didn't load properly and the edit was made till the loaded content. I'll re-edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN

involved in 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 "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". Thank you. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle and theatre honours

Your point noted. However, the information is relevant and needs to be part of the article. It can be presented slightly differently and I will amend it subsequently. But however, you need to stop imputing motives. To balance the section, kindly source and add battle and theatre honours awarded to Pakistan Army instead of objecting to addition of content. AshLin (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Had I been imputing motives, I would have reverted you. I have assumed good faith and so should you. No, It is not about whether Pakistani awards are added in a huge list as well, its about notability and the long list which seemed to overshadow the section, however, you got my point. It was a friendly warning to amend it in a way that you don't get POV allegations if they are notable enough to be there. You don't need to be defensive about everything. See WP:BOLD. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ISI

Im trying to make the paragraph about ISI role in Balouchistan conflict more netural, but it contains out right lies like ISI is using LEJ etc terrorirst groups which still attack the govt...please can you monitor it to stop other politically motivated groups from editing it thanks --Ambelland (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I already have that article in my watchlist and am reverting any vandalism. Be sure to use reliable sources as your references so that editors don't object to you with POV label. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

here ...Ive restructed the page, so all the pakistan operation are together and removed some properganda like trying to portray Militia leaders as innocent but this user doesn't stop ..his sources are all from ethnic nationalist racist groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambelland (talk • contribs) 21:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the content you removed and I think it is a valid removal. Look at the references he added; they include wordpress blogs and other wikipedia articles. Don't worry about such edits. Keep track of edits of this user on this article since he's likely to added back again. I've warned him of vandalism on his talk page. Now on his next edit (if he adds content without a source or with a blog as a reference) revert and report him at WP:AVI. If that doesn't work, simply revert his edits warning him appropriately along each revert on his talk page so that administrators can see that he has been given warnings and incase he reverts you more 3 times in a short period (WP:3RR) report him at WP:AN3. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSN

You should not have moved my comment per WP:TPG. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My move was according to the guidelines with your comment unedited. Quoted from WP:TPG:

Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than subsectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g. :<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments

In addition you may review the consensus about the consideration in the collapsed section. The move was perfectly called for. Infact your creation of another subsection seems a bit inappropriate too since all other editors are commenting on the reliability too. I'll advise that you move that to the end of pakdef section. It is rather accustomary to bold your starting text in support or against the question because creating separate headings create confusing multiple posts. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your "signing" for me and then starting a paragraph with "Interrupt Note" is a violation of other's comments guideline. I suggest you remove my signature, move your "Interrupt Note" to the bottom or elsewhere in a different section so we can focus on determining the reliability of the source. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:TPG:

"Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :Heading added for REASON by lTopGunl (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add — USER NAME OR IP , — (continues after insertion below.) before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption."

Please stop assuming me to be a violator from the start, or you'll never be able to build a consensus with me on basis of reason. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail~!

Hello, TopGun. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani textbooks

Hi. Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion are rather stringent – the underlying principle is that speedy deletion actions need to be uncontroversial. If there is any scope for disagreement, a discussion should be started instead and consensus sought there (for the page Pakistani textbooks, the appropriate avenue would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion). My undoing of your CSD request does not constitute wholesale approval of the situation as it currently stands, merely recognition of the fact that there may reasonably be thought to be differing views on whether or not this constitutes an appropriate redirect (it is not, in any case, obvious vandalism). Hence to pursue the matter further you would need to take it to WP:RFD. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It significantly is obvious vandalism because the title Pakistani textbook controversy is significantly different from the title Pakistani textbooks. It would simply mislead a searching user for the textbook related content to the controversy. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:R#DELETE does not mention anything about the strings of the target and redirect pages having to be similar, only that there has to be a logical reason why one links to the other (point 5). If you want to argue this on point 3, presumably the counter-argument would be that this does not apply here (see e.g. WP:RNEUTRAL and related pages) because the only thing Pakistani textbooks are notable for is their bias. I'm not saying that that's right or that you're wrong, only that it is not unambiguously the case that one or the other. Hence, you would do better arguing your case before a larger number of people at WP:RFD than here. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam

Hello Hassanhn5. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this article is about a book, so WP:CSD#A7 does not apply. If you think it should be deleted, consider AfD - I do not advise PROD as I think it would be contentious. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for notifying. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: File:BarnstarPK1.png

Yes. In fact, I personally desighned this BarnstarPK1.png by modifying Original Barnstar. Szhaider (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Great. Did it get approved? I didn't see it in a list... --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A question

Have you edited under a previous account? Your insistence on attributing obvious statements of fact remind me of another editor. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this is my only account and I don't remember editing this article before. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So you have not edited Wikipedia under another account it the past? The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Never. Also, the statements are neither 'obvious' nor 'fact'. They are claims. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Karakul (hat) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Karakul

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed tag format. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakdef.info

Just had a brief look at the noticeboard, I guess PakDef has been declared unreliable by an admin? Pointless editing here if Pakistani sources are ignored.
--Hj108 (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was a fully WP:canvassed consensus. Same should have been done to br site otherwise. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Flying ace

We're seeing it very differently. I saw a rv & a change to a gf edit, back to what I saw as a bad one, with what looked like a POV edit summary. (As for the "moving", IDK where that's from; AFAIK, I never touched the refs.) That, followed immediately by a 3RR warning, looked to me like an attempt to silence me. Then accusations of personal attacks? (AFAIK I made none, & the 3RR warning to you was no different in my mind than yours.) Then "the discussion is over"? So all you want is the last word & what I'm saying doesn't matter? That's how it looked to me. (And still looks.) FYI, I never looked at the sources, 'cause I saw no need to; I'm not challenging the truthfulness or accuracy of the claims, just not believing them. (This sort of thing isn't new, which is one reason I don't.) Yet you took issue with me for that, too. Which only leaves me further convinced of POV editing. Am I overreacting? IDK. FWIW, the page is off my watchlist. I'm not interested in fighting over it, 'cause it just isn't worth it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We definitely are seeing it differently. About the moving, you are free to confirm from the edit history (anyway since we are over it there's no point). My 3RR warning was not immediate but after 3 reverts (you can confirm that too). And no, I did not want to silence you, I was rather expecting a debate from you, instead you gave back the same warning. I know you did not challenge the content and I didn't even blame you for that. But your comments on my talk page were not WP:Civil and then you accused me of nationalism even when you yourself agree that you weren't even challenging the content and just not believing it, that's all I meant by the personal attack. The sole reason for reverts were moving back the content that (maybe mistakenly or not) went to the end of the sentence while the references were in the middle hence making that sentence look as if its not supported by them. And yes, I certainly don't want to leave a last comment, that's why I repeatedly asked you to end the discussion (with me willing to do the same). There is no point in fighting on an article talk page if we are not talking about ways to improve the article (or the article content). I guess this is a clarification enough for my reverts and warnings. I've given you an explanation of how the revert warnings work on your talkpage. They are usually informative warnings which you can confirm from WP:3RR. Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

|{{uw-ew|Indophobia}=} JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've not gone past WP:3RR I guess. Also you might want to check the talk page where I have already discussed the topic and quoted the wiki's policy to the editor of which he is taking no avail. He's outrightly denying quotes that I link him from WP:MOS or anywhere else. I think he's the one editwarring here. You might also want to note that he did not assume good faith on my first edit (which was properly explained in the editsummary) and instead misused roll back feature to revert me with out proper explanation. My last revert was after basing my comments on the policy quoted on the talkpage of the article [8]. The user seems to be putting POV forks from the controversy topic to other topics with exact same content and is totally inflexible for debate, rather assuming me to be vandalizing. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hassan, go outside and take a breather for 1 hour, seriously. Come back to edit only when your mind is clearer, alright? Trust uncle Dave, its for your own good. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave, you might want to read his first warning (starting from that tone right from start) on my talkpage[9] without him leaving a proper editsummary misusing rollback as well as the comments on the talkpage linked above. I'm not angry or flaming, just reasoning with cool head. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently, the way we see it, your cool is a wee bit hotter now. Seriously, just go and take a breather, will you? Wouldn't kill you and chances are you'll be back with a clearer mind, just go already! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, if you think so. Though that matter is from last night and probably already stale to be hot on. Off I go. (PS I was already watching a movie when I got the notification. lol.) --lTopGunl (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• You don't have to break the three revert rule in order to be edit warring. Edit warring is repeatedly reverting to the same, or substantially, the same, version of an article or part of an article. Whether or not you have discussed the matter, whether or not other editors involved are at fault, and whether or not your edits are based on policy do not alter the fact that reverting to the same, or substantially, the same, version is edit warring. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right and the other party is wrong". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you could guide about obvious (properly explained) reverts vs no edit summary reverts along with simple denial on talkpage... what is the next step to it? I don't think DRN would matter since he's not even sticking to the clearly written policy? Does that go to WP:ANV? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan Air Force

Dear Hassan the page above has been vandalised by sock puppet users I have reverted the changes made by sock user: Iamtrhino [10] check this dif page for pov pushing on the Pakistan Air Force page please try and keep an eye out on the page as he is likely to be back trying to push his pov again on the article again I dont use wikipedia much so I am asking you a favour

Regards 86.176.204.241 (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, that article is on my watch list already. I didn't know of these edits before but I do revert any vandalism that gets noticed on my watchlist. I'll definitely revert if the user pushes POV or removes sourced content, but also consider reporting the sockpuppet. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

He has been blocked a while ago sadly some of his edits still linger on so I am trying to remove them from the page cheers for the response good day 86.176.204.241 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, if he's blocked its completely ok for you to remove all his edits. Consider creating a username. That helps when you come back after breaks. WP:OGRE :) --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This ip likely belongs to banned wikivandal Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). please do not edit on his behalf. It is against policy.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You've to prove a pattern to call some one a sockpuppet, otherwise its a personal attack. Be assured I edit on my own behalf. And since (s)he asked to revert edits of a blocked user, the request and action both would be valid. BTW, why is it that all your comments on my talk page go in negative? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Hi. I'm afraid I don't know how to do a range block. If you need one, please try another admin or use WP:AN/I. Another option is to semi-protect your Talk page if the vandalism persists. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting will limit the good faith IP editors from contacting though that will be the last option if it persists. I'll contact an active admin. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

PAF/Pakistan Air Force

Do you have any evidence that Pakistan Air Force represents the primary topic for the acronym PAF? I don't see why it deserves to be the redirect for PAF, as I don't see why the Pakistan Air Force is any more important or common a target for someone search PAF than, say the Philippine Air Force or the Personal Ancestral File. Unless you can show that the Pakistan Air Force is overwhlemingly likely to be what someone is looking for when they type PAF into the search bar, the page moves should be undone. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see as per a few google searches (since those represent the backlinking and the most search queries); Pakistan Air Force: 5,270,000 results, Philippine Air Force: 1,010,000 results, Personal Ancestral File: 2,400,000 results. Pakistan Air Force in Pakistan is mostly referred to as only PAF instead of the full name when ever referred to in English. I created a PAF (disambiguation) page and added a navigation link on the Pakistan Air Force page. I think this will be more useful as a search query, and since a disambiguation exists and is linked, there will be no other issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, those results are good enough for me, thanks. If anyone else objects, we can worry about it then. I'm going to use a slightly different hatnote for clarity. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I guess the one you added now clarifies enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Activities in Balochistan

There was a section of "Activities in Balochistan" in the main article of Inter services intelligence but somehow you don't like it to be added and you have been removing it just because you think its my POV. I don't know whether because you are a proud Pakistani or and under estimator of Human rights.

All of references and sentences provided in that topic are referred from highly reputable sources of HRCP and known Newspapers if you take a deep look on it. You have also constantly asked me to talk on your reverts but you have never talked by yourself on my reverts. This surely shows your proud of being Pakistani!!!.

All of the material in "Activities in Balochistan" section are showing the truth if you know the current affairs and are a true newspaper reader. I look for your cooperation and help if are a true human being. I am again reverting the said section as i do not find any Vandalism or POV in that section.

Thank you!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behrozaltaf (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been reverted by more than 3 editors. Stop editwarring and start discussing. Use article's talkpage. If you keep on reverting, you will end up getting blocked. And stop using multiple accounts, one of your sock has been blocked, another attempt might get you an indefinite block on this ID as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have not yet answered my message?, explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behrozaltaf (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page for this, not mine. So that other editors who reverted you can participate. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and File:Cha1 lrg.jpg#Licensing. utcursch | talk 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Some reference cleanup needed (Indo-Pak conflicts)

Hi,

Since you take pains about the article Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, may I suggest you couch the barebones urls with "cite web" templates. Otherwise having multi-column ref-lists looks ugly. AshLin (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning that. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan-U.S. skirmishes

I see that you are an active editor of Pakistan and military-related topics. The recent section at Pakistan–United States skirmishes needs expansion and I'm looking for some help in this regard, especially since it might be featured on the news section of the main page (see the thread at WP:ITN/C). Please do help improve the content, if you're free or are interested. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sure. I'll edit it every now and then when ever I get to it. The article currently seems a starter, it might do with some dedicated editing. Be free to amend my to do list on my user page if you want me to help with any article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added some details and heavily cited the whole incident which was probably due to get over flowed with tags. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks in a much better state now than the two-liner paragraph before. Mar4d (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Np. Thinking of adding more. Actually this can have a spin off article if more data is available other than these overlapping news reports. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"No consensus to move" vs. "Keep."

I saw you changed my closing of the previous move discussion on 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan. I don't think I agree with that. I figured it'd be more productive to discuss it before trying to change it back. :) The term "keep" is typically used when discussion proposed deletions, not page moves. More importantly, I don't think we had a consensus to keep that title. (In fact, we obviously didn't, as we had consensus to move it to a new title shortly after.) When there is a lack of consensus then a page should not be moved, but that is different from having a consensus not to move, because in the latter case someone should think twice before proposing the move again. Whereas if there is no consensus, they should feel free to reopen the discussion. I also read up on the policy a bit and it seems that move requests should remain open for seven days before closing, though considering we already moved it somewhere else I'm not sure whether we should still apply that here. In short, I think the move proposal closer should read "No consensus." instead of "Keep." Knight of Truth (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, my attempt was to remove a possible misleading interpretation so that a user might not take "no consensus" as a silent consensus. Other wise you are correct, keep is slightly different. But the phrase no consensus has the issue I explained since a silent consensus would mean exactly the opposite of not moving. What about "Consensus on not moving the page"? I expected a revert if you objected and would have left it without another discussion since you were the closing editor and I was a main opposing one (but since the consensus was heavily on oppose I took the change of clarifying). Feel free to fix it your way. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But "consensus on not moving the page" is precisely what I don't think there was. User:L1A1_FAL still opposed, for example. But there seemed to be a consensus that there was no consensus, at least. :p I'm all for a clarification, but "no consensus" or "no consensus reached" sounds best to me. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimous. Even if there is opposition, the consensus is still built on a stronger case generally with more people on the side. When a move is opposed, it would mean that there was consensus on not moving since the suggestion was declined/opposed by consensus. What about referring to another cancelled page move? The consensus seems be clear on not moving the page. Anyway, its completely up to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, tricky. Good one! --lTopGunl (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Barnstar moved to user page. 05:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Same to you. Please continue developing the article and improving its content with WP:Reliable sources. Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --lTopGunl (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

When you return

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)

The So-called "obviously correct content"

The article, "Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent" seriously needs "proper" rewriting. The fact of the matter is many paragraphs are actually pro Muslims and mere fantasies. How can its say, trade expanded because of Islam when it was already Well established before Islam, i.e silk route. Many of the facts are irrelevant to arrival of Islam in south Asia. As European economic expanded, its trade was expanded with other countries including India as well therefore one cannot say arrival of Islam is responsible of trade expansion! Also age of exploration also helped Trade expansion, not Islam.

One more thing, Islam also destroyed many ancient Indian universities and did not built any infrastructure which "contributes to science" and destroyed Hindu, Buddhist, Jain temples and universities and built Mosques on them which is irrelevant to science expansion! So it will be better for "proper" rewriting of Impact of Islam that should include its atrocities on Hindu civilization!--Pt.Sumit (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Inter-Services Intelligence, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)