User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AN/I Discussion[edit]

I stumbled across a current discussion over at AN/I I thought you should be aware of. I noticed you had an DS block on BoDu (talk · contribs) recently and it seems it has stirred up again. You may want to chime in, appears to me he may have violated his agreement to get unblocked but you should probably be the judge of that. --WGFinley (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi summons[edit]

Could you please take a look at this pair of contributions. The user is having problems with WP:IDHT all over the shop and has only recently served a short block. The continued accusations of bad faith etc are becoming tiresome. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked for three days for WP:BATTLE. I'd also have imposed a topic ban, but James Tod is not under community sanctions, so I cannot do that... I fear this block isn't going to solve much, but let's see... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Tod's Annals is a history of the Rajput communities, and since RIK's contentions all relate to his perception of how the vernacular histories of those communities are presented/the accuracy thereof (as Boing! said Zebedee has also spotted recently), the sanctions issue is indeed borderline. The similarities in repetitive scattergun presentation of arguments etc by RIK and Intothefire are remarkable, as is the manner in which they disappear for a few days and then renew the repetition. We'll just have to live with it, I guess, but at least they could be civil about things & not bandy around ridiculous cabal accusations etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really familiar with Intothefire, though I think I must have interacted with him in the past, so I cannot pick up any similarities in their editing patterns. But, if there is evidence which make it plausible that both accounts are operated by the same person, then, perhaps, the best solution would be to file a WP:SPI. Otherwise, just adopt the wait and see approach: if, when his block expires, RIK starts attacking you and your admin friends again, then he'll be blocked again and a thread on ANI can be started to get him topic banned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiko4564[edit]

What do you make of [1]? Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to reblock, but was beaten to it by Jpgordon... Sigh, that's what you get for giving second chances. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done[edit]

Block my account, I have had enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For how long?

And are you aware that if I block your account I'll remove your ability to edit your talk page and to send e-mails, so you will not be able to appeal the block?

Are you really sure you want to be blocked? Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forever. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do indefinite blocks on request, I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite drunk and am being mean to people, best stop me now. Going back to the pub, will do further crap from mt moblie, assuming of course I can figure it out Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check this?[edit]

Hi Salvio, I am getting tired of reverting this IP's vandalism. He/she continously removes verified content [2][3][4][5], has been reverted by several users (including me) for vandalism [6]. Curiously, he/she now refers to the Afshar Operation as "genocide" which no reliable source does. But it comes after the Bangladesh genocide has been discussed. The IP geolocates to Norway and I suspect there might be connections to User:Mustihussain (now called Altetendekrabbe) see also. I do not have any evidence, however, shall I report said IP or will you act on this? JCAla (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits are most definitely disruptive; however, the IP hasn't edited in 10 hours, now. So I am a bit hesitant to block, because the issue seems a bit stale. I agree that the IP seems rather stable, but I don't feel comfortable all the same. If you think the IP is a sock, probably WP:SPI would be the best venue; or just wait: if he's back with that nonsense, he'll be blocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you very much. :) Will keep you updated if it continues. JCAla (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

[7][8] Is it normal practice to put two NPOV tags on an article which just passed GA? Based on this users past comments in which he has sought a topic ban on myself I am of the opinion he is trying to goad me into rash behavior. It would appear to me there are a little campaign going on here and the e-mails are no doubt a flying. I should like to know if removing either one or both of these ridiculous tags will be a violation of my 1RR restriction? I had reverted this user [9] yesterday as after JCAla and he had finished editing the sources were grossly misrepresented (I have no idea nor interest in who messed it up I just want accuracy in the article). Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DS, instead of making lame, bad faith accusations, you would be well advised to explain and discuss your content removal on the article's talk page. There's no need to create drama. Mar4d (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am making an inquiry regarding my restriction, I made no accusations only offered an opinion. As for your advise [10][11] perhaps it is you who should be discussing why you put two tags on an article which just got GA. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually involve myself with GA, so my knowledge is limited, but I think that since the article has passed a GA review, I believe that two drive-by NPOV tags are inappropriate. Checking your previous reversion, it had nothing to do with this issue, so feel free to revert again. It'll not be a violation. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sal. In case you think this was a "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" between myself and JCAla he is not the only person to have commented on howwell this article has been presented Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#Verification see there please. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kashmiri Pandit guy may need attention again[edit]

Hello Salvio. I'm recommending a six-month block of two IPs, and here's the rationale.

The first IP was blocked three months back in November for nationalist edit warring on articles related to Kashmir, especially Kashmiri Pandit. The block expired on 1 February. You made a new block of this IP in February, but then lifted it with the comment that page protection was better. Can you check again, and especially look at his edits since March 1? He is branching out to more articles than just Kashmiri Pandit. He removed sourced information and article tags at Kashmiri language. He has added copyright violations at Lawrence School (Sanawar). Looks to me like that a six-month block is the right thing to do. User:Sitush asked me to look into this since I issued a previous block.

The following could be the same guy, or a colleague:

Not active enough to be worth blocking. But here you receive a personal compliment from the 208.* IP editor. "'Note Sitush and Salvio giuliano both surely belong to the same ethnicity and are thus busy changing the history of Kashmiri Pandits in order to push their foreign agenda in the future." Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rechecked this user's edits and I agree with you, a six-month block was definitely warranted. I hoped that page protection would do the trick, but it only encouraged him to jump to another article... Thanks for your kind note!

I also agree that my 208.125 fan does not edit enough to be blocked for the moment, but I'm about to add him to my followed users. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. I was looking into setting up an SPI, as EdJohnston had suggested to me, but those things are so difficult when the users are IPs. Although I agree with your decision, is it one that needs a review somewhere because of the library implications? I would hope that the recent sanctions + the fact that people can still contribute from the library IP if they register an account is sufficient? - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SPIs for IPs are difficult, because, among other things, checkusers will not link IPs to named accounts and the entire investigation will only be based on behavioural evidence (in this case the quacks were deafening, but it doesn't always happen)... As all blocks, this will be reviewed if someone asks for an unblock. More probably, however, innocent users who cannot edit will ask for an account by sending an e-mail to the unblock list... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should I ever get to New York, which is unlikely because I cannot fly due to ear problems, then I would make a trip to that library, stand in the middle of the thing and shout "I'M SITUSH !". I would have to arrange protection from NY's finest first, of course. The number of disruptive contributors using that place, across multiple IPs, to edit Indian subcontinent articles is unbelievable.

Your point about the review makes perfect sense, but it then raises the question of why do admins sometimes go to ANI etc and ask for a review of their own block. My lack of appreciation of subtleties, I guess, is a demonstration of why I'll not be putting my name forward at RfA any time in the next decade! - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The day you visit that library, I want to be there! But I think I'll not to disclose my identity... Somehow, I fear I'd not be really appreciated.

And admins start ANI threads in two cases: when they're not really sure of the action they've taken and need a sanity check and when the person they've blocked is an established user and, so, they know that drama is headed their way. When you know that you'll be dragged to ANI, it's better to do the reporting yourself: this way, you can at least have a little control over how the case will be presented. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure that I could sell tickets for the event! Now, the miscreant is back, using another IP. Do we semi-p the article or are we going to end up rangeblocking the NYPL (scary!) ? - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP blocked for six months and article semied for a month. God, I love playing whack-a-mole, sigh... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012[edit]

3RR U5ard and probable multiple accounts[edit]

Hi Salvio, thanks for this. It looks like this user has a few other usernames for this purpose. See [12], [13], [14] by one time users I4gbb (talk · contribs) and I86fk (talk · contribs). Check the obvious pattern in their usernames and compare with U5ard (talk · contribs). Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is taking care of it already at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I4gbb. Ciao – DVdm (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are fast. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Menounos [edit]

Hello! You placed a semi protect on this page not too long ago and the IP that keeps adding the ethnic hyphenated Americanism of Greek- American as opposed to just proper nationality to the lead, is back again adding it and edit wars will break out again because this person has no interest in any kind of dialouge on the talk page,this has been goin on for a while it seems at this page perhaps a long term semi protect is due here,i see an old insert on the talk page about this from like 4 years ago--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has only made one edit since protection expired; before re-protecting, I'd like to see if he comes back again. I'd feel uncomfortable doing so just yet... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Buddy check the revert history of the article now.... would this be up to your comfort level to protect it ? And if so protect it for a much longer term this time,it is clearly warranted .. --Wikiscribe (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1RR restriction[edit]

I want it lifted forthwith. I am sick of this [15][16][17][18] He will not discuss the issues he says the article has, he does not try to get consensus, he is using shit sources and misrepresenting others and there is nothing I can so, which he knows full well. This is a deliberate provocation designed to work towards his wanting a topic ban on myself. Either remove my 1RR restriction or put that article under a 1RR restriction as I will not have all the work I put into it ruined by a POV pusher whose purpose currently appears to be to piss me off. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • First thank you for what you have said the Mar4d, second [19] is a violation of the IBAN. I have already reverted this content which had already been pointed out on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify [20] All that cotent in that revert was written by me. The entire article was written by me, this itself was probably a violation of the IBAN [21] as it comments directly on content I had written, I did not report it as I promised I would stop with the drama. The second violation however is one to far. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I can revert JCAla's deletions. After Mar4d's edits the content was as of his edits. I've not violated (I don't know which ever the first alleged violation was.. other than one that I self reverted right after the edit – if you would count that, then count these too [22] [23]). I was already engaged on the talk page before the revert anyway. The IBAN does not forbid me from make any comments on the content of an article which he (I guess I can use this in an IBAN report itself) has been doing too and was considered ok, it's a restriction on commenting on his edits. When I reverted the content, that was the new one as written by Mar4d and reverted by JCAla. I revert him as I did not agree with it and he never explained his revert either. The last such report at ANI clearly specified a confirmed WP:BOOMERANG on another false one. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course context is everything. Self reverted instantly in case it has violated the IBANSelf reverted instantly and then Explained I was on my mobile and had hit rollback by mistake Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Darkness Shines' edits are not violations of your IBAN, in my opinion, because they were self-reverted immediately and because one was an error (it's easy to hit rollback by mistake – I have done it myself far too often, sigh –). Regarding TopGun's edit, instead, yes, it is a violation. At least, in spirit, of the interaction ban. Assuming good faith, I want to give you a little time to self-revert. If you fail to do so, I'll have no other choice but issue a block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I gave those diffs in reverts to my own self reverts. I know mistaken rollbacks happens sometimes (though I'm not sure about the other one where first reference was given and then reverted... in short message delivered). I agree to self revert (reverted), but I want to know how this is a violation? The content as edited by Mar4d was a different content... after DS's revert it was restored again. Now weren't the edits by JCAla on that content? Also can you clarify to JCAla not to bring up IBAN when ever I talk about content as placed currently in an article rather than edits made on any article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My revert was solely based on the fact that this article by consensus was granted GA status but the content dispute (in which I am not involved) turned it into a rag rug. So, I see the need for both parties to discuss the issue first and then add the disputed content without hundreds of tags necessary. For TG's last sentence, I never once brought up his IBAN except for one single time when I brought it up to him personally because he was asking other people to remove a wikilink added by DS. JCAla (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well your revert didn't explain the removal itself... you should have said that on talk page. And this is not a single line Talk:Pakistan#Overlinking/incorrect linking. The whole section went into the spiral. I can not edit the content but I can talk about it, disagree with the current state and give my opinion on it. I made no reference to the edits. I did how ever say that the link was incorrect (which it was). This is not a violation... that's why I asked him to clarify this to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Darkness Shines and another editor were edit warring; a third editor reverted to Darkness Shines's version and you reverted him. Now, you were not technically reverting Darkness Shines's edits, but you were indirectly editing (in this case, removing) them. I consider it a violation of the spirit of the restriction, at the very least, because you chose to get involved in a content dispute/edit war which revolved around Darkness Shines's edits. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand the indirect issue, but my involvement was because I was already editing the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that and, in fact, I was not alleging you were hounding Darkness Shines; however, your interaction ban prevents you from modifying each other's edits, even if you were already editing the same article before its imposition. Of course, this provision is to be interpreted cum grano salis: if you modify in good faith something which was added six months ago by Darkness Shines (or viceversa), I don't think you'll be blocked, but you both should pay particular attention when editing the same article. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for assuming the good faith I had adding that content. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you (TG) brought it up, then let's just ask Salvio for information purpose only as I am now interested to know. DS added this wikilink and modified the other. TG, referring to said edit, said: "These links have yet to be fixed, some body please fix the linking." Is that ok according to IBAN? It has been a while and has been resolved by now, so just for information purpose. JCAla (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not refer to an edit... provide a diff if I did? I referred to the content and the linking as it currently occurred in the article (carefully choosing not to refer to any edits – and I explained it then too). I've been working on it since months. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you referred to the article in its entirety, then it's not a violation, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This will help having clean talk page discussions in future on the content instead of the IBAN when I talk about article content. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, he did not refer to the article in its entirety.
You said you were right in doing so as it was on content, so I want to know if that is indeed right? :) JCAla (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's about the content as explained (as I did not refer to any edits made rather the content that existed in the article... and was rightly fixed by an uninvolved). . See Salvio's comment above. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was not familiar with above links when he wrote that. Let's wait. JCAla (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The linked edits to the article's talk page do indeed border on violating the interaction ban, because you are referring to a particular edit by Darkness Shines, even if you do not name him directly. Had the edit been brought to my attention earlier, I probably would just have dropped a note on your talk page, because I consider it minor enough not to require a block. However, since it has been brought up now, yes, it is probably a violation. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So how am I supposed to add my opinion about content in the article as it currently exists (because it has been added by him)? Here's a similar one from DS Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment#Terrorism allegations from soviet era? and Talk:Pro-Pakistan sentiment is filled with objections on the content I added. I don't think these (like mine) are violations as the discussion is about the content. The ban is on referring to each other's edits not on discussing content. Those were not termed as violations so I continued discussing the content in the same way. If the article has content issues, like that incorrect linking.. it is reasonable to comment on that content without commenting on the addition or the editor who added. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a difficult balance, I realise it, but my personal rule of thumb would be: a. comments on the article in its entirety, they're ok; b. comments on specific edits not made by Darkness Shines, of course they're ok; c. comments specifically on content added by Darkness Shines, they can be construed as violating your interaction ban, even if you don't name him. The goal of an interaction ban is to force two editors to ignore one another and to ignore each other's edits. This does not prevent you from editing or commenting on the same article, but it prevents each of you from focusing on the actions of the other – which is why I say that you can comment on the article in its entirety. As I've said to Darkness Shines in the past, if you believe the other person has violated one of Wikipedia's rules, someone else will certainly act even if you do not call attention to it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well this one in specific was without commenting on the edits... if the article has issues and I discuss them... like being done on other mutual articles, without any comments on the specific edits (on that content? yes)... keeping it just to the content. Naming is something far from that. For example that wikilink, I was working since last three months to get it to FA and I'm the FAC nominator currently... so I have to get rid of the overlinking or incorrect linking as asked at the FAC. Regardless of that too, I think just talking about the content and its issues is not initiating an interaction (to provide more context, I didn't say this was "added" and should be reverted or something... I referred only to the content as it was in the article and discussed it with other users... since it is not a topic ban, it is appropriate. This was also clarified at ANI previously that IBAN didn't mean "first come first serve"). --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Salvio, I was the reviewer of that article and several neutral long-time editors agreed with me to give it the GA status. Now Mar4d and Darkness Shines are engaged in a content dispute. I reverted to the version when the article was granted GA status and told everyone involved to first reach a consensus version on the talk page before making the article very very unpleasant to read. Just have a look how the version TopGun restored now (by reverting my rv) looks like. It is simply disruptive to restore such a version when an article was granted GA status. JCAla (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you'll get me a block on your content dispute, really? Take it to article talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvio, can you take a look at this as well while we are at it? User talk:TopGun#Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. Just like the Pro-Pakistan sentiment article.. this was also preemptively created right after I was about to create and work on it with Mar4d. This was an acknowledgement [24]. Isn't this clear (and) intentional gaming? How do I go about editing this...? I'll surely add content as planned though. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you express the intention of creating such an article before Darkness Shines created it? I mean, was that a case of active gaming or a mere unfortunate coincidence, meaning that DS got to it first? Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the intent was expressed first.. Mar4d invited me to create and work on one with him... (see the first link and check out the short discussion it cites from my talk page). Clearly it was read from my talk page and then created and acknowledged for that later. By the time I replied it was created already... but obviously me and Mar4d were going to work on it. Not a co-incidence in short given the discussion on my talk page and the later acknowledgement. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created that article for two reasons, the first being to piss off MAR4d as he was tagging and edit warring on an article I had created from scratch and worked hard on to bring to GA status. I will not bother to mention the other. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the talk page of said article may be a good idea Talk:Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir As for Pro-Pakistan sentiment, it was created entirely in good faith. It was a redlink in my sandbox since the deletion discussion for the made up word. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand explained on both reasons now I guess. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Darkness Shines, to quote the Lord Chancellor's words, he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Considering why you created the article, I will not block TopGun if he edits it; if I were to do so, I would basically let you use my tools for an undeserving end. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume, in context, the above extends to all content in the article... --lTopGunl (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, as far as *I* am concerned, it does. Of course, I cannot guarantee anything with regard to other administrators, but I will not block you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll cite this recognition if objected (or in the edit summary) then to be fair. I think there are obvious issues arsing from the above situation preventing me from rightfully editing other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other issue? :) Provided the diffs above. JCAla (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I had missed it. Now I'll take a look. It's just that I'm not used to having so many edit conflicts on my talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the efforts today checking and handling the issues without drama. JCAla (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JCala. Today I'm indeed earning my pay. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you also notify this user for not pushing over the BRD while I'm at 1RR? [25] Was previously objected on and explained on talk so I removed it (I continued to make other adjustments though, but left the reverted content as is) and mainly [26]. There were previous on other articles too which I ignored. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rjpsingh[edit]

You recently blocked Rjpsingh for 24 hours (edit warring at House of Tulsipur. That was picked up by you from a report at WP:3RRNB, I think. Both then and just now, they are quacking loudly as an IP. What's to do? - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh, for the moment, I have semied the article for a fortnight. This will force them to use their account, if they want to edit. If they do, then I can impose the discretionary sanctions (I have warned both the user and the IP as to their existence). Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ta. Let's see how we go. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And just so you know (in case you are not actually watching the thing), I have just reverted them (both the IP and the immediate reappearance of Rjpsingh). Hopefully my most recent comment on the article talk page suffices. This really has been going on for far too long and has the appearance of filibustering + long-term warring or unwillingness to understand the comments of many other contributors. From experience alone, ca. 80% of this article should not exist on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to prune the article as much as you want! I tried to read it, but my eyes started bleeding... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d[edit]

Can you explain to him that even manually removing content I had just added counts as a revert please. I tried here User talk:Mar4d#1-rr over this [27] he self reverted then did this [28] which he thinks does not count as a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel like repeating this over and over again, so you should refer to the following discussion: User talk:Mar4d#1-rr as far as this is concerned. I did not *revert* or *undo* content intentionally, rather I manually deleted a reference which has been contextually misquoted/misrepresentated. My edit summary points for the involved editor to discuss the issue on the talk page and bring about consensus. So in no way does this action constitute an edit war. Mar4d (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is on another article and has nothing to do with you. Mind your own business please. Not in the mood for drama. Mar4d (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no [30] which puts you on three reverts on this article in 24hrs. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself violated your restriction by restoring the content here. I had made no comments on the issue yet, but still you went ahead the restored the content. Even the user that you "agreed" with has seen my point on the talk page, therefore you can't cite consensus for your restoration now either. Mar4d (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, that was my first revert to that article since 13:09, 8 March 2012 That's like two days ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)‎[reply]

Cant tell this one out...[edit]

I want to know if this can be done in an interaction ban? Intentionally overwrite the article and self revert? I think its a violation as I don't see an excuse or a mistaken edit there. Also if we can weasel around adding tags to each others' additions? [34] (this one has been done on other articles as well). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that the "overwrite" seems to have happened undercover in the guise of self-reverting. Note the change in the article from the version before the edit and the version after the "revert." Mar4d (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you are on about, I self reverted after looking at the article history, I was unsure if I was violating the IBAN as the person with whom I have the IBAN had been reverted by another editor, so I decided better safe than sorry and self reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken mar4d. DS completely reverted his edit. [35] --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was explained in detail above. Even if content was modified it was a violation in spirit. I was asked to self revert on on such grounds. I didn't think this needed another clarification. But now that this one has been added and self reverted and doesn't look like a mistake along with tags.... --lTopGunl (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DS is certainly flirting at the boundaries of the interaction ban. The rs tag above, the comments on the Pakistan FA nomination by TopGun, the fat fingers and multiple self-reverts. Purity, imo, is missing. Personally, I'm not sure if this ban is a good idea in the first place. There is a lot of squabbling but an amazing amount of good content seems to be coming out of the mess as well. Sometimes, in the interests of comity, wikipedia does shoot itself in the foot! Salvio, good luck! --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good luck, RegentsPark; I really need it...

TopGun, yes, in my opinion Darkness Shines has violated the interaction ban – in particular, the addition of the {{rs}} tag is a rather clear violation. I apologise, however, because today I cannot properly follow through, because I have a deadline which I'm trying to meet and, therefore, have too little time to properly investigate this issue. I have to suggest you take this to ANI. I am sorry I cannot help you solve this dispute, but I don't want to be unfair due to lack of time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I've reported at ANI as recommended. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can't actually add a tag to an unreliable source? That's just stupid. Well see you in a week or so when the block is lifted. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvio, your suggestion to go to ANI above is getting me in line with a topic ban for going there with the report. I'm sure my editing in the topics are not of problem. Probably you can do some explaining there since you told me to make the report after confirming the IBAN violation. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I saw that and I honestly wanted to apologise to you. I didn't image the thread would evolve into a topic ban proposal. However, you have blatantly violated your interaction ban when you reported that account to SPI, connecting it to Darkness Shines... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I said I couldn't name or refer to the suspect there (and I didn't)... the clerk asked me it would be ok to email, so I did. I reported only the sock for the same reason. Looks like I'm getting pretty damned today for following admin and SPI clerk's advise! Maybe some insight from you at the ANI would do. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you said you cannot name the other party, but, if you remember, Darkness Shines was blocked for a similar violation of your interaction ban. He referred to your actions, but was careful to refrain from naming you directly; you appear to have done the very same. You cannot comment of Darkness Shines' actions – or on the accounts you think are his socks. I readily admit you were not the one explicitly connecting the two, but it is a violation nonetheless. As I told Darkness Shines, there are thousands of active editors; if the other party to your interaction ban is misbehaving someone else will certainly pick it up and report him. You should just pretend the other no longer edits Wikipedia... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sock was engaging me... I had to report. I wasn't even sure if it was him. I named other suspects in email. I know it is a violation if I refer I indirectly.. so I said I wouldn't refer (in those words). Clerk asked for an email... I sent one in detail. For me this was all about the sock. I'm not even 100% sure its him. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now that I think about it again, your SPI could also be considered as a report to determine whether the other party had violated the interaction ban... I still think it probably borders on being a violation – but I recognise you tried to abide by the letter of your restriction and, furthermore, I must admit I hadn't considered the possible IBAN ban violation aspect of the issue. Personally, I don't think that Darkness Shines was socking in this case and, in my opinion, it was someone else, but I don't know who. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Same here, I was not sure. And I had that in mind too, ie. to report this as a possible ban violation. But I didn't want to be accused of wiki-lawyering. So I just said that I couldn't name the master. Others poured in and did that. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding what you just wrote at ANI sal, it would make more sense to just ban the making of reports at ANI and instead it someone thinks the other has made a violation of the IBAN to ask an admin. Would need a few admins obviously as you are already getting swamped. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitrator, Jehochman, had made a suggestion about a noticeboard for related disputes which several admins have an eye on such as Salvio, Bwilkins, etc. JCAla (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you (both) could come up with a couple of admins, I'd be willing to go along with this proposal (or with Jehochman's). Unfortunately, lately I've been swamped in real life, and so my time for Wikipedia has grown more and more limited – and it's not going to get better over the coming week... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If JCAla approaches Jehochman to get it set up would be the obvious solution. And why has the transgression of the IBAN gone unpunished? I was blocked in an instant. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For three reasons, the first is that your recent violation, the one which was the proximate cause for the ANI thread, did not result in a block – and I don't want blocks to depend upon my availability –, the second is that TopGun's violation is not as clear cut as I first thought it was and the third one is that there is an ongoing ANI thread which contains a proposal to topic ban you both and I'd really hate to block either of you during it, because I'd basically be silencing you... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is crap Sal, This was an IBAN violation. It is bad there are off wiki communication about this SPI to discuss on how to be rid of me without you making excuses to avoid blocking for the violation. It is bloody obvious I am not a sockpuppet, this is a pure setup job.[36] Whats the betting the email evidence is the same. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My report has been outright amended by DS adding some unrelated user to the scenario (because he used the word sir?), [37]. This is more than enough of a violation. It was not even in other users' comments. Also the comment below is a reply to me; another vio. Btw, this is a violation report. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • IBAN says Do not comment on the actions of others. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify above comment, I am pointing out the obvious, I have not altered any content, nor have I commented on the actions of the person with whom I have the IBAN, adding a suspected sock to an SPI has not altered any content. I was doing my best to keep my comment brief so as not to violate the IBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • TopGun, as a matter of fairness, you cannot report Darkness Shines, claiming that it is not a violation (and I agree in part) and then ask that DS be blocked when he replies. No, he's not getting blocked either, as far as I am concerned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the report was for amending my report. While this drama is on... nothing is being enforced and any one can revert anyone's edits. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's suggestion[edit]

Salvio, would you set such a thing up? I'd name you, Bwilkins, Basalisk, Bbb223, EdJohnston, TP, Delta Quad, and Elen of the Roads as administrators who are familiar with the situation. Magog recused himself if I am not mistaken. JCAla (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to get neutral admins in. Bwilkins and Basalisk (if he's an admin at all) appear to have a prejudice on me. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. 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) 23:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another violation[edit]

How many will it take? [38] I had already reverted that content out, [39][40][41] It was added by a sock btw, the sock reverted it back and now the person with whom I have the IBAN has A modified all the refs, and B gamed the system so I can not now remove the content added by a bloody sockpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the sock, I have removed the content he added as I believe reverting socks are not violation of the IBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User admitted he was Nangparbat on his talk page, so just ignore this. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are a sock yourself SPI will eventually block you off I am only removing what was not discussed on talk pages and content which you are well aware will cause trouble Barrot0114 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I add the content back? I did not just modify references to game.. I endorsed the content and added templates to the references along with proper referencing. Removing them was a vio... even if not blockable I should be allowed to add this content back. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is most certainly not a violation to remove edits of sockpuppets. Given I had modified said content first means I most certainly have not violated the IBAN. Restoration of it will most certainly be a violation of the IBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[42] This is a diff of mine being presented. I'm not sitting here sniping at him and looking for violations. There have been so many that I can't ignore. This is actionable without me adding further opinion. And what the... [43] my addition has been commented out. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before you block me please look at the thread on Magog's talk page for context. I am looking forward to the topic ban, at least the block shopping will stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, Darkness Shines, I had hoped I could avoid blocking either of you until the ANI discussion was over, in order not to silence either of you, but you are really, really making it difficult. Is there a reason why I should not reach for my banhammer? Honestly, lately it looks as if you're just begging to be blocked... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do I do about the content addition. It is now commented out and invisible, gamed instead of removed. Can you revert it? --lTopGunl (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have reverted Darkness Shines' actions, it's merely procedural and I have no opinions whatsoever on the underlying content dispute, so please don't take this as an endorsement of your version. I have, however, left Darkness Shines' rephrasing of the copyvio. I should probably chalk it up to WP:IAR; the point is that I do not intend to revert to a version which contains copyright violations... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Completely understandable and I don't take it that you endorse my version. The copy vio was the sock's contribution as attributed, didn't get enough time to google it up. Btw, this was in compliance with the discussion on Magog's talk page and I restored the content on my own behalf attributing the copyrights to the sock and my own additions as required, but the content was good. I'll be checking and re-writing any copyvios now. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sal, have you read the discussion on Magogs talk page? He assured me this would not happen. It has of course happened, am I not allowed to ask him about it? I am not the one creating drama here, this should never have been an issue. It happened once already wit the Pro Pakistani sentiment article, I was assured it would not happen again. How the hell am I to inquire about something I was told would not happen without providing a diff? Just block me and be done with it, I have tried very very hard to ignore the baiting and gaming, I am sick of the blockshopping and the sniping. I am sick of off wiki communication being used to file bullshit SPI investigations, for whic hno action was taken though it was an obvious IBAN violation. I put a rs tag on a primary source and it gets dragged to ANI. Look at the history here, ask yourself who creates the drama? Who keeps blockshopping? I can assure you it is not me. So yield your mighty fucking hammer, restore the duplicate shit into an article I am working on, restore the work of a sockpuppet who stalks and harrases me constantly. And do not even try and tell me this was not fucking planned out. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your edits to Magog's talk page were not a violation. It's been confirmed that both to ask for clarifications and to report violations of your restrictions are allowed. The point is that the edits made by a blocked user can be reverted, but if a "legitimate" editor takes responsibility for them, then he can readd them to the article. And from there, the normal rules on edit warring and dispute resolution apply. Now, I understand that it must be a drag to edit an article when you cannot modify the edits of another person, but this does not change the fact that you are both under a restriction... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reason of course that it was commented out was the copyright violations, [44] The entire Kunan Poshpora incident section is copied and pasted from there. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And did I just not fucking remove that[45] Not a IBAN violation no doubt, after all that is only already in the article once, better have it twice. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, restoring a section header is not a violation? Weird. BTW you have yet comment on restoring the copyvios. Feel a little silly do we? Next time wait till I respond ya? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had written a reply containing the words "removal was justified, then", but got too many edit conflicts and thought to myself to hell with it... But, then again, I'll say so now: since you were removing a copyvio, your actions were justified. You should have asked one of the many uninvolved admins who are following this entire charlie foxtrot, who would have certainly acted, but let's not be nitpicky... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the copyvio justification was given when my contributions were commented out. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rephrasing my contributions for copyvios.. I'm allowed to do that. I guess these were all, but tell me if there are more. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please not do that? If there is something reliably sourced missing from the "Indian security forces", then add it there, but I see no point in duplicating that section, honestly... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can merge the sections without violating IBAN. The incident is a specific event. I guess this will go as a subsection to that. Other users can probably help decide how it should be adjusted. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a gesture of goodwill, would you be willing to move your proposed subsection the article's talk page and see what the consensus is, there? There are a couple of uninvolved editors who have the article on their watchlists and I'm sure they'd be happy to chime in. I believe this would be the best forward... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some effort rewording the copyvio which was in the previous version, I think it atleast deserves to stay in the article. I've strictly followed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (take a look maybe?), and there are some other editors involved here and parent articles I guess... they'll chime in and add denials or whatever POV Indian govt has over it (I guess there was one in my additions too?). I will ofcourse discuss the content on talk page if there are issues. On a side note, if you feel like making an edit there to alter something, I'll not consider you involved after that either. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is it, I am done with this article. This should not have been allowed to happen again I will remove the content I wrote and it can rot. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There ya go[46] So much better and neutral this way. What a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question, reverting blanking/vandalism, for example, like above shouldn't be IBAN vio like removing copy vios, right? --lTopGunl (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I give up. I'm incredibly sorry that I wasn't good enough to help you sort out your interaction ban and solve the various disputes you are involved in. I really am. But the sad truth is I failed; I tried to avoid using the block button, as it is a blunt instrument and, in my opinion, unsuitable for productive users, but I see now that was probably an error. Hopefully, other administrators will be smarter than I was and will succeed where I failed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not your fault, like I said this should not have been allowed to happen. I removed the content I wrote, the article is no longer my problem. I have had enough. Thank you for the help you offered. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've handled it fine, but I concede blocks should have been issued when ever interactions were initiated. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans on DS and TG[edit]

Hi Salvio. I read your comment on ANI and agree completely with what you say there. My main concern is that they're going to end up blocked or banned if this keeps showing up on ANI. Right or wrong, the community does not have a whole lot of patience and the repeated testing of the limits on their interaction ban is already trying that patience. There has to be some way of avoiding a lengthy block and I think a topic ban is one way to go. Another possible approach is for an admin to be willing to take responsibility for keeping them out of ANI, and the editors were to agree to the admin being an arbiter in their disputes. I'm traveling with little internet connectivity till next week but if you have an alternative suggestion or if you believe the status quo will work, I'll support that. --regentspark (comment) 02:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree with you: the best solution would probably be a group of three or four admins – because if we only have one, he can be unavailable – that both parties trust, who can control that the two of them do not violate their restrictions and who can work as mediators. Or, alternatively, the second best solution is the topic ban.

At the moment, I am also terribly frustrated that I cannot properly follow the ANI thread, sigh... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun once again[edit]

I have reported User:TopGun for edit-warring over Folland Gnat. FYI he also faces a topic ban. It is hard for me to correct his defective edits (imho) without falling into his edit-warring trap. AshLin (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Someone else who has spotted the difficulty. I had a similar issue at Anti-Pakistan sentiment & decided to back off. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TG has now gamed the revert and got away without anything other than a mention that gaming the system is actionable but with no action taken by you as admin or User:Swarm – the reason being I spotted it 24 hours late. While I'm not quite of the opinion that justice is served, the question of his bad edits still remain. Do I game the system now by reverting after 24 hours as he does or do I have other options? AshLin (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In spirit of WP:BRD, I (or some one else) will revert you again if you do. It's simple. Don't revert war when you know you have made a controversial change. If I was the one changing content, it would have been quite different. Now you come and change, and revert again when you are reverted and have the face to report me for it. That is already gaming the system. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're probably already aware of the provisions of our blocking policy, however, per WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE [...] even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased [...]. And this was one such case.

My advice to you, here, is to now follow WP:DR: you can ask for a third opinion, for instance, or start a thread at WP:DRN. If you wish to revert TopGun, feel free to do so – that's not a violation of any rule –, but if he decides to revert you, that'll not be a violation of his restriction either. At this point, you should try to get more neutral editors to chime in and see what the consensus appears to be. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not right[edit]

[47] Changing the article I wrote from wiki project Bangladesh to wiki project Pakistan so I get topic banned from it? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, that was not a nice move on Mar4d's part. However, if you get topic banned from Pakistan-related articles – and, at the moment, you're not yet –, what WikiProjects maintain an article will have no relevance. The admin who were to determine if you have violated your hypothetical topic ban would read the article and check if your edits are related to Pakistan; I don't think any admin would block you because the article happens to have a WikiProject Pakistan tag on its talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it just seems a bit of a low move. In looking at the votes I think there are no doubt a topic ban will happen. Sorry to be continually bothering you I know you are busy. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, I didn't change anything neither did I remove the Bangladesh tag. I just placed a WikiProject Pakistan tag underneath it because the article is related to Pakistani history. Self-revert please. Mar4d (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously adding it to try and get me pushed out, and WPMILHIST|class=GA|Cold-War=y|Pakistani=yes why this then? Why not leave iut as it was under Asia? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no such thing as an "Asian" military history task force. Adding the Pakistani parameter automatically categorises it into the "South Asian task force" (which does exist). And as far as the WP:Pakistan tag is concerned, this article comes under the scope of Wikiproject Pakistan, hence the need for the tag. Mar4d (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_48&oldid=1148820138"