Jump to content

User talk:TopGun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a Proud Pakistani!
This user has major contributions to 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan, which he helped achieve Good article status.
This user is a WikiOgre
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luna Santin (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 16 February 2012 (→‎1RR block: comment, plus links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.




Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.




Please create new sections at the bottom of the page.

If we were already talking on this page but the conversation is gone:
you'll find our conversation in one of the archives unless you were rude. You can revive it by creating a new discussion here and linking it to the archive and you can even move it back with attribution in edit summaries if you were civil.

If I have left you a message on your talk page, you can reply there, but remember to add a {{tb|replace this with your username|ts=~~~~~}} template to my talk page because I might not be watchlisting your talkpage if we don't interact regularly. I will do the same for you if you ask me to or if you have not recently commented on my talkpage in the discussion.

Note that it is 2:40 AM (+5 UTC), where I live.
Wikihounds at work



















South Asia merge refactoring

Hi Top Gun. Generally, you should not refactor comments of others without their permission. If the editor in question wants to comment without explicitly stating that they support or oppose a proposal, then that is their privilege. If you believe that the "support merge" should be explicitly included in the comment, then the proper course of action is dropping a note on that user's talk page asking them to either refactor the comment or to give you permission to do so. I also direct you to the following in WP:TPO you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. I don't disagree with your conclusion, the comment certainly sounds like a support merge to me, but it is always better not to put words into the mouths of others. Regards. --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the comment explicitly stated support so I added a header which was a mere formatting per WP:TPO (which I have read). Though the better idea would be to ask the user, but this was unambiguous. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say above, you're putting words into someone else's mouth. Not a good idea. But, your call, I try to stick to 1RR and this is not important enough to break that vow. --regentspark (comment) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TPO (Fixing layout errors & Fixing format errors) is what I meant to cite. If that user had reverted me I'd not revert at all. The second one was along with the citation of WP:TPO... not a big deal though since the comment was very clear. I get your point anyway... will take care. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For record, I informed the user here [1] who made no objections. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed state index

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved to Talk:Pakistan

please see the references before tagging anything as "false information", i am adding the references here again for ur comfort. Please read these pages carefully

1) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/17/2011_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings 2) http://tribune.com.pk/story/193321/pakistan-ranks-12th-on-failed-states-index-report/

truth is always bitter but you have to accept it, and if there is nothing you can do about it, then please think twice next time before categorising a genune edit as "false information". --Morsecoder (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take that to the article talk page and discuss it there before adding again. Your claims are very controversial at best and certainly wont get a place in the article in my opinion. Simply adding polls or reports does not mean that the information belongs to the article. See WP:TRUTH. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: Barnstar

Thankyou! Though you may or may not have noticed me a little less active now a days, which is due to me being busy at my recent job, so apologies for that. But I'm totally here till its an FA, and inshallah will continue to work on Pak related articles afterwards too. Cheers September88 (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Every one is a volunteer here. Can't always take so much time for the wiki, I keep going on and off too. Was just a recognition for the good work done. Looks like we're stuck up with the RFC for now (though we can still work on the final touches till its over). As soon the dispute is over we can go for FAC (will wait for enough people to be active on it at that time). Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How long does it usually take at rfc? Plus I like your suggestion about FAQ subpage, lets work on it before nominating to FAC to avoid further unnecessary interruptions. September88 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC normally takes thirty days to complete (can be relisted if there is more time needed) but if there's overwhelming support or oppose, it can be closed earlier. But the good thing is that since that is a deadlocked matter, the article is all good for any normal editing for the overhaul's final touches. About the FAQ, was just a stray idea in irritation from the disruptive tagging and editwars. I'm in for that so that any one who comes in for drive by tagging or additions can be directed to Talk:Pakistan/FAQ. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thats a lot of days. But as it can be improved still I guess its ok. Will give suggestions for topics to be included in faqs on articles talk page in due time. September88 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Wikipedia turns slowly. But I guess this one will come to a sooner end. Ok, will wait for the suggestions. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm stalking, but I just wanted to voice my support over the idea of having an FAQ. This is a great idea in fact. I can already come up with some questions that would be relevant. I'll try dig into the archives to search for more contentious topics that may also be applied here. One question we can have in the FAQ is about the Kashmir conflict and the map of Pakistan which has been vandalized before precisely because of this reason (for example a question going something like "The map of Pakistan is incorrect!) referring to the orthographic map with Jammu and Kashmir highlighted and then a logical answer as to why the map is illustrated in this way. Mar4d (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no objection to this kind of stalking which is always helpful (I'm used to the hostile one too). Yes, that should really go to the FAQ. We can then put a talk page banner on the top linking to the FAQs - I've seen this on some other articles. This will help atleast in the case of those who are not actually intending to vandalize once it is a featured article. Also, please continue with any editing in the article, we shouldn't stop because of RFC. I'm thinking we should have sent it to FAC sooner. Let's finish it up for that over the RFC time so that we can do it as soon as its over. The repeated proposals from archives is a good idea to be added to FAQ. The talk page is getting quite some attention now, if we open a section on this there, we might even get more suggestions. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

I have brought this to DRN[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern and western regions

Just wondering, is the following statement in the lead of Pakistan factually correct? Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, after a struggle for independence led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah that sought the partition of British India and the establishment of a new independent state for the Muslim majority populations of the eastern and western regions of India. The Pakistan Movement envisioned a separate homeland for all Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, not just the eastern and western regions (if that was the case, there wouldn't be any Muhajir people). Should the "eastern and western regions" be cut out, so as to just leave "and the establishment of a new independent state for the Muslim majority populations of the Indian subcontinent" etc.? Mar4d (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, better to remove "Eastern and western regions" which might invite another debate about whether it refers to just those regions or refers to the majority and hence the area. The sentence is clear enough without that. It should state, "Independent state for the Muslims of British India". --lTopGunl (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended it it to:
"Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, after a struggle for independence led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah that sought the partition of British India and the establishment of a new independent state for the Muslims from the Muslim majority, eastern and western, regions of India."
I think there's no more ambiguity now. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear TopGun: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Indians in Afghanistan.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR

Two sources you added to Quaid-i-Azam Academy are being discussed there. I can't see how they back the statements you referenced with them. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to back the statements, but the article since it had no citations. Feel free to move the citations to another place in the article. I've moved one to the right place. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added more (academic) sources to the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Intelligence

The RFC is going nowere, I have brought the issue to DRN [3] Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there's no consensus and are you out of noticeboards? --lTopGunl (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is ever so pointy to try and write a well researched and accurate article. I ought to be ashamed of myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Researched... right. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Words With Friends

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Words With Friends. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Rediff a reliable source?

Do you happen to remember the talk page of some article where we were having discussion over some sort of content dispute and where User:Darkness Shines was claiming that Rediff is not a reliable source (or something along those lines)? Will disclose later why I am interested. Mar4d (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I vaguely remember that though I don't remember where that debate was... but let's take a look [4] [5] [6] [7], from what I gather, this is one of main stream Indian internet sources. One can be wrong, but then we take google news as reliable, don't we? I think it is reliable, but then it (only sometimes) depends on who has written the article or if the article is an opinion piece not endorsed by the publisher. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging User:Darkness Shines

[8] How about trying this: State your case once, then move on. It seems, from the exchanges, that you're not going to convince each other of anything, so stating your case once should be sufficient, and it might allow other editors to focus on editing. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but he was demanding quotations which I was not bound to give and further escalating leaving notes to the closer. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think this will help everyone. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi am User:Anuandraj. Nice to have a talk with you but am sorry we meet this way. I am against any kind of war, let it be edit wars. but am sorry i reverted your change because that altered the table alignment and you made it without a note in the article's talk page. I myself talked to scholars to find out a personification of Pakistan. But no one could find any. Somebody who is involved with news media for quite a lot time can only find out one. I need your help there. The article has a lot of potential to be a featured one. It talks about the origin of human idea of 'person'ifying their area of dominace. Let's have a cool mind and find it out. Anu Raj (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thankyou for taking a good faith start over. I've explained the reasons to you in that discussion. I think that is sourced content. Anyway, I can fix the table if that was all the issue with the edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a common man. please have a look http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/01-anti-us-cartoon-were-here-to-help.gif?w=1000&h=760 Can you identify the character? The search is on. Anu Raj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Lol, this one was obvious. It would be good idea to find free images like those (if available) and upload to commons. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is hostile

I decided to do a couple of edits a few days back but have run into a total blizzard of opposition. Is it always like this? See Sockpuppet thingme. Argcontrib (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, actually it is not that hostile. Some users might have mistaken you for some one else. If you are not that person, you can offer them to get a check user on you and clear the misunderstanding. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC v editing practices

I wanted to note, that when you reply in RfCs and similar threads, you might want to keep the proper formatting: indenting your comments with just semicolons you break the list, which is a discouraged behaviour. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to list my points under the discussion, rather was discussing the same point that was given above. I do make separate points when a discussion on something different starts. Is that what you meant? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the simple formatting issue:

Wrong formatting:

Why? Example1 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right formatting:

You'll need to see the source markup to see my idea. Though visually indistinguishable, these patterns result in different code and different load on servers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Got it. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakophobia

A straight question: can you see that book in full view or not? I don't mind whether it is online or because you have a copy of it. If you can see it then you can provide some context; if you cannot see it then the statement should be removed at least until you or someone else can sort out the sourcing issue. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The snippet view does show some context, which is mentioning an anti-Asian step. I'm currently looking for a better preview version. But I don't think this should be removed. The source is an academic work, mention in which is clearly notable, and after all... the article is not being sourced by this source alone - just that term is. We have many other sources for the article. Not being able to access the source is not equal to lack of verifiability. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have proposed at Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment that the statement be deleted for now. You can always reinstate when a better context/alternate sources appear. There is absolutely no point trying to wikilawyer with me about WP:V etc. I'll go through the rest of the article, just in case there are other problematic sources such as this. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not wikilawyering... and (though not required to) I'm trying to find a better preview. I'll reply there. Lets keep the discussion in a single place. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For record

Here's a preview with context. I think this is enough as it directly uses the term in the context:

even though it was easy to fan Pakophobia under the circumstances.43 The Prime Minister of Pakistan, on the other hand, asserted that Nehru was not afraid of aggression from Pakistan, but was protesting against US aid for fear of..

[9] U.S.A. and the Hindustan Peninsula, 1952-1966 - K. K. Kaul - Google Books. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JF-17 airspeed

Done. Something fishy there. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not his fault, PAC's specified figures come without certain parameter stated clearly hence the confusion for ignorant fools to assume things there. As a retired crew chief, all I can say is... learn to read between the lines, because when it comes to statistics, manufacturers are quite the cherry-picking lot sometimes. Do you want more clues? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guess they don't release the accurate figures anyway. Although a simple math would have been fine by the wiki, but that's not what he was doing. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some what settled I think. Will check out the articles too. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of the cauldron and straight into the frying pan... see User talk:Abhijay (is he a friend of Raj?), this guy from India is obviously trying to get me into trouble, again. Seems that all of India proper is angry with me... sheesh~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Forgive him too! What did he do? About Raj, haven't had any interaction with him recently... don't know about this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Okay, I'll forgive him too. Strange... tt would seem that all of a sudden, I have become the big forgiver instead of being an active contributor to the project, what a waste of my productive time~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your twinkle warnings balance that stance, don't worry --lTopGunl (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He added this before too.. looks like he was 'invited' to add it back by an IP on this talk page this time (if the IP was another person). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right! --lTopGunl (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Darkness Shines' restriction

Baiting Darkness Shines into violating his WP:1RR claiming that you are not under a revert restriction – though technically correct – is certainly disruptive and can be seen as a form of WP:GAME, especially considering the fact that your interaction has often been suboptimal, in the past.

You may not be under a revert restriction, but that does not give you licence to entrap your opponent in a content dispute and then go block shopping. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not done that (and will not do that). To start with, Darkness Shines is the one who follows my edits and still I don't follow his. So entrapment is out of question. The fact that I verified the references for him and then gave him explanations is self explanatory that it was a pure content dispute to which he still reverted (I was not alone in disagreement with him either - on both articles). His WP:BATTLE of still following my edits has not stopped though... you thought his sanction would stop that, but no.. he just had to comment on an ANI post and mess around when an IP was making rude remarks to me on multiple pages. I reported him on the appropriate noticeboard and the admin there did acknowledge that he had breached his restriction. It will actually be a relief for me if I don't get to edit with DS again. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I have elected to walk away from some subject areas in which I have an interest purely in order to avoid certain people. It did me no damage: there is a world of knowledge waiting to be tapped out there and if, for example, DS were repeatedly to follow you to articles concerning molluscs or something similar then you might have a good case for a stalking/hounding allegation. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really, can't help if he even follows me to an ANI board and add his comments to a report about an unrelated rude IP. And yes, he did follow my edits to unrelated non contentious articles. I have a whole list, and then DS admits to it (and does not think it is wrong). This is is not just an allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Honestly, your battleground mentality is a problem just as much as Darkness Shines's is. In the "pakophobia" case, there is a problem with sourcing and various editors, including Sitush, who was entirely uninvolved, have said as much. Instead of starting an edit war, gather the sources on the article's talk page and discuss the issue there. What's the harm if the article doesn't look the way you'd like it to for a day or even two? Neither of you is completely innocent here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided sources there. I did not revert war when sources were requested. I simply added them there. Yes, there might be a problem with sourcing but I'm not the contributor for them all.. and I did more than I was required to, to provide information about the sources at that article as well as the other one I mentioned in the report. If you see I did leave it to DS's version (one which it still stands - other than sourcing of content, which I did on request)... so your WP:BATTLE accusation is completely wrong. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The battle accusation is correct, about both combatants. Please stop engaging each other or editing the same pages. Pseudofusulina (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I can stop replying to his claims, but as far the editing goes he says he follows my edits, he needs to stop doing that. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, go edit something where it is unlikely they will follow. I could use some help with articles about early British pugilists, for example. Neither of you own any article. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never say I own an article (actually I cite against that). Anyway, wouldn't that be easy... hound some one, forumshop the admins and then push the opposing editors off the articles for good. Can't contribute to those I wouldn't have any interest in anyway (and I actually do edit a variety of them, just not as remote as you suggested). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about you follow me around? Your basic knowledge of Pakistan would make you good for editing some of the articles I've edited. I work full time, so I have limited time to edit. If you look at some of the caste, Sufi saints and poets of Pakistan, villages, plants articles of the area I work in, you could contribute well to those articles, and Darkness Shines can simply stay away from them until the two of you learn to interact. Your help would be greatly appreciated with articles I've seen, and you have the requisite background knowledge (you can more than find Pakistan on a map). There are some disasters on my suggest bot list (one of my user subpages), also, where your knowledge would be helpful. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can surely help you (though it'll be a bit slow with some content disputes piled up). Thanks for the offer. I'll check around your list. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's better news. However, it would be better still if you tried to get away from the content disputes. Sooner or later, unless something gives, people are going to end up with long blocks/interaction bans etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be the way to solve content disputes. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, TopGun. I know you know how badly South Asia is represented on en.wiki! Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mostly stubs. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOVN post

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard's talk page. Bit belated but hopefully still relevant. Nightw 18:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Replied. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1RR block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating known 1RR restriction on articles. 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) 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have not been under any 1RR restriction for which I'm being blocked. The blocking administrator told me not to game Darkness Shines into an edit war (who was under a 1RR restriction agreed on his unblock). I clarified to Bwilkins (the blocking admin) that I didn't intend to game DS in to an edit war and gave adequate reasons for it (other users were in disagreement with him where he edited in that case). I also told Bwilkins that he did not have the authority to impose a 1RR as an administrator which is imposed either by community or by Arbcom. This is a bad block (My previous two blocks were for making a second edit was well - the second one was even clarified by the reviewing administrator to be unjustified but he didn't remember to lift it before it was expired). Bwilkins has rejected two previous ANI reports from me about rude IPs or editors as well with putting all the blame on me where I had been civil. This is a completely prejudiced block for what so ever reasons Bwilkins has. Also note that this report was made by DS on AN3 soon after he got reported for his own violations which even Bwilkins acknowledged. He has again violated his 1RR at Pak Watan where I reverted only once. Even on the article I am blocked for, Inter-Services Intelligence‎, both my reverts were not against DS (one revert to an IP who copy pasted content and another to a different user). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have not been under any 1RR restriction for which I'm being blocked. The blocking administrator told me not to game Darkness Shines into an edit war (who was under a 1RR restriction agreed on his unblock). I clarified to Bwilkins (the blocking admin) that I didn't intend to game DS in to an edit war and gave adequate reasons for it (other users were in disagreement with him where he edited in that case). I also told Bwilkins that he did not have the authority to impose a 1RR as an administrator which is imposed either by community or by Arbcom. This is a bad block (My previous two blocks were for making a second edit was well - the second one was even clarified by the reviewing administrator to be unjustified but he didn't remember to lift it before it was expired). Bwilkins has rejected two previous ANI reports from me about rude IPs or editors as well with putting all the blame on me where I had been civil. This is a completely prejudiced block for what so ever reasons Bwilkins has. Also note that this report was made by DS on AN3 soon after he got reported for his own violations which even Bwilkins acknowledged. He has again violated his 1RR at [[Pak Watan]] where I reverted only once. Even on the article I am blocked for, [[Inter-Services Intelligence‎]], both my reverts were not against DS (one revert to an IP who copy pasted content and another to a different user). --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not been under any 1RR restriction for which I'm being blocked. The blocking administrator told me not to game Darkness Shines into an edit war (who was under a 1RR restriction agreed on his unblock). I clarified to Bwilkins (the blocking admin) that I didn't intend to game DS in to an edit war and gave adequate reasons for it (other users were in disagreement with him where he edited in that case). I also told Bwilkins that he did not have the authority to impose a 1RR as an administrator which is imposed either by community or by Arbcom. This is a bad block (My previous two blocks were for making a second edit was well - the second one was even clarified by the reviewing administrator to be unjustified but he didn't remember to lift it before it was expired). Bwilkins has rejected two previous ANI reports from me about rude IPs or editors as well with putting all the blame on me where I had been civil. This is a completely prejudiced block for what so ever reasons Bwilkins has. Also note that this report was made by DS on AN3 soon after he got reported for his own violations which even Bwilkins acknowledged. He has again violated his 1RR at [[Pak Watan]] where I reverted only once. Even on the article I am blocked for, [[Inter-Services Intelligence‎]], both my reverts were not against DS (one revert to an IP who copy pasted content and another to a different user). --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not been under any 1RR restriction for which I'm being blocked. The blocking administrator told me not to game Darkness Shines into an edit war (who was under a 1RR restriction agreed on his unblock). I clarified to Bwilkins (the blocking admin) that I didn't intend to game DS in to an edit war and gave adequate reasons for it (other users were in disagreement with him where he edited in that case). I also told Bwilkins that he did not have the authority to impose a 1RR as an administrator which is imposed either by community or by Arbcom. This is a bad block (My previous two blocks were for making a second edit was well - the second one was even clarified by the reviewing administrator to be unjustified but he didn't remember to lift it before it was expired). Bwilkins has rejected two previous ANI reports from me about rude IPs or editors as well with putting all the blame on me where I had been civil. This is a completely prejudiced block for what so ever reasons Bwilkins has. Also note that this report was made by DS on AN3 soon after he got reported for his own violations which even Bwilkins acknowledged. He has again violated his 1RR at [[Pak Watan]] where I reverted only once. Even on the article I am blocked for, [[Inter-Services Intelligence‎]], both my reverts were not against DS (one revert to an IP who copy pasted content and another to a different user). --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
  • A note on the escalation as well... [10]. The last block was not even justified... --lTopGunl (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also ask for action to be taken against Bwilkins for over stepping his authority - if it can not be done now, I'll ask for that on ANI. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For reference, here is the thread in which BWilkins warned you about this behavior, and here is the report which led to the block. It's clear from the conversations linked that you were aware of the warning. If you were convinced that the warning was bogus, why didn't you escalate the issue? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TopGun&oldid=477127203"