User talk:TopGun/Archives/2014/December

Balochistan conflict
In place of reverting to nonsensical edits, try making a self revert. It is a separatist movement, not terrorist. Per whole section body. It is obvious that there is some off-site canvassing going on, because I don't see any edit war over this common term since 99.247.57.5, a sock puppet got blocked. Niether these changes have any consensus or we used this term(terrorist) ever before. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Two other editors independently reverted it in and I found your revert and calling them sock indiscriminately disruptive for which I reverted you... they are recognized as terrorist org in Pak and Britain... so WP:CCC? -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It all started after a block evading sock. None of the citations actually cite them as Terrorist group. Do any of them does? If so, then change the whole article wherever they are listed as Separatist. Every new change requires consensus so it is you who has BURDEN. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I reverted you because of Zerefx and the second IP, both of which are not blocked or evading a block as far as I see, 2) the lede says it already that they are terrorists, infobox is a mere reflection of article. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "is the most widely-known Baloch separatist group" thus your edit including those 3 sounds nonsensical. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it makes it alright for you to editwar and call other editors sock just because you think you are correct about the statement. For your WP:OR / WP:SYNTH from twisting the lede statement, all I have to say is separatists and terrorists are not a mutually exclusive group. That makes both versions equally correct even by your standards. Though you are free to editwar with Zerefx and the IP till you get blocked. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought we have already moved on to talk about the edit rather than talking about the IPs or users who have recently became interested in edit warring on that page. You said that infobox is a mere reflection of article, but article labels them as a separatist group. But how they are not different now? Read TERRORIST. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And the person behind this nonsensical edit, has a epic POV. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I said the article does not label them a separatist group while excluding them from the terrorist group. They are not mutually exclusive terms. See WP:POVEDITOR. Every one has a POV (recognizing that is the first step towards resolving a conflict). Focus on the edit and if that makes the article POV... try discussing it at talk the usual way maybe? I find Zerefx's comment driven by sentiment but not by a point of view as any sane person would call civilian bombings terrorist attacks... that is for the article talkpage though. I can only advise you to resolve it there. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, I will. I must clarify that I actually reverted this edit after I was hunting the edits of 99.247.57.5. Not that I really participated on this page or any related page of Balochi conflict before. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know you were hunting the user from history of Pakistan (it might be a valid split like the history of the Republic of India if it is done right, I can't vouch for the IP's edits here).. actually I was stalking him too as it was a very bold split.. I actually informed WT:PAK of this back then, but I found the revert in this case indiscriminate as other users had reinstated them independently which makes it valid edit / revert, so hopefully you'll understand my reason for reverting you... I can agree to disagree on your views about the group. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of GIK Institute Clock Tower for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GIK Institute Clock Tower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GIK Institute Clock Tower until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep attacking me when I am trying to help.
Before I could even write a comment on why I reverted you, you reverted it. Am I your enemy. Do you not want my help in improving that article? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did I attack you? A revert is not an attack! I said the template incorrectly claims to be a wikipedia policy which is blatantly incorrect and requested you to not to blanket revert even if you disagreed on the core issue being discussed. And I gave a separate reason of NPOV for removing the other part. Please assume good faith while interacting with other editors. I know you want to help make the change, but also be advised that wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I do not have to wait for a formal RFC close for something so obvious as this. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That you make changes and revert without discussion feels like an attack. Never mind your justifications. You could keep your finger off the button long enough to talk. Right now I feel like I am wasting my time trying to create a consensus that will establish lasting change. I spent a lot of time reviewing policy and past discussions to start this RFC and your actions will derail it. Just making changes and claiming your interpretation of policy trumps anyone else's opinion will not result in lasting change. That will lead to the same argument as to what policy is over and over for years to come. Getting a lot of people on the RFC to voice their opinions will be something something to refer back to and say all these people thought the same thing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to derail the discussion; it was evident from my revert that it was in support of the discussion. What I said was such incorrect template didn't need an RFC to change esp the policy part. My second revert was mainly because you also reverted back in the claim that this was a policy of wikipedia defined at a talkpage of an article which is neither a venue for policies nor has enough community wide consensus. The only reason I hadn't changed it before was because I hadn't seen it until you started an RFC. That said, if you had only reverted the the article scope part I wouldn't have reverted you back then just for that and waited for the RFC. As for opinions, that's how wikipedia works, consensus comes after policy; it would have been a different thing if some one was even considering an opinion that the policy allows it and the consensus is now to decide what to do. Anyway, would it make sense for you to editwar with me over something which we both oppose in the same way? I am fully in support of your method to let the RFC run its course and have a massive consensus to further back the fact stated by NPOV and my original removal did not ask for a WP:SNOW RFC close, just a WP:SNOW removal. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, I was too quick to revert you in the first place as well. If I written my comment first, I would have realized the policy part was OK and would have left it. I am telling you removing the policy guideline section before people have had a chance to comment on it going to create a hostile environment. Frankly changing it from policy to guideline is also asking for hostility. It says I do not need to wait I already know what is right. Even people who support the eventual removal won't want to participate because they won't want to part of the hostility. You decide if it should be put back. I have done my part. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you are this concerned towards preventing contention (at a topic covering slurs), if some one would revert the article scope part again, I wouldn't editwar with them and let it be till the end of the RFC though I would contest the revert and consider them to be editwarring (if you really insist, just assume WP:IAR and put that part in till the end of the RFC and remove it when it is closed.. but do ask yourself if you really want to do a pointless exercise when we've both come to clarify our concerns without contention - and it may be taken by some editor that you favour the status quo)... but as I said, it's just a way to assert that things need to be changed by removing them... a fairly common practice on wikipedia (esp. the first instance of removal). For the policy part, I strongly object to it, it's plain out misleading that a wikipedia policy exists on an article talkpage to not change it to a different version from that of the one who put it there. It is worthy of atleast a behavioral check on the person who put it there in the first place to see if other concerns about the user's editing are there because I do not find it a good sign when editors claim fake policies, call themselves admins when they are not and so on (you may get the picture). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

AE
Check Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

War outcome related article needs expert view
An RFC is here ,I think you have edited would request comments from you in this Shrikanthv (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just to point out, the RFC summary is too short and unsubjective. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Welcome
Hi Dude! I want to thank you for your warm welcome. Will take suggestions in near future. Stay Happy and Healthy! Leena Barber (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * , as you've not used an explanation summary of your enforcement I just have the back and forth discussion to summarize it myself as I'll need it in any appeal; is it based on the accusations WP:Battle and the source representation or is there anything else? (I am seeing consensus for the latter on talkpage which seemed to be your major reason and I'm seeing it as an admin interference with editor matters and find valid reasons for appeal to you for that part or at further venues). Also hope this does not prevent me from working at WP:PAK till my appeal on non content matters as they are not covered by TBan (such as inviting users to the project or improvements of the project itself, not content or discussion building consensus about content). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:EXPLAINBLOCK does not apply as this is not a block. You were sanctioned due the battleground approach, personal attacks, misuse of sources, casting aspersions and edit warring which were all discussed in the admin section, which from my first comment was always a suggested possibility. I can't see why it wouldn't allow you to work at the WikiProject (or other articles) as long as you don't make edits related to the wording above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ban vios lead to blocks (and is a similar preventive concept) and I'd rather know before to avoid getting blocked and would probably need it for summing up an appeal too, so asked away. Thanks for the clarification. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This revert looks like a violation of your topic ban as it relates India to a war involving Pakistan. I'm not going to block you this time as I'm assuming good faith, but I will log this warning (unless, of course, you can show me that it isn't a vio), and it will be unlikely that you won't be blocked if there is a next time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Balochistan conflict has never been a war between India and Pakistan. It's an insurgency in Pak which India supports as per a section in the article based on which I made the revert. Also replied on your talkpage. I am ready to self revert if it is clarified how it relates to my topic ban but the wording of the ban was clear to me about wars between the two countries. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what what I see - a war involving Pakistan which India is a party too and therefore a war involving both Pakistan and India in which they are opposing parties, perhaps not as clear as Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts but still a conflict between them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , as per the reverting editor, India is not even a party to it.. infact the whole dispute being whether India supports the internal insurgency (not war) in the country or not. Isn't it quite arbitrary to expand the topic ban specifically related to wars to any interference of India-Pak in each other's affairs which are not often related to wars? Anyway, should I self revert? This will also be expanded in a similar way to Kashmir conflict which has resulted in 3 wars between the countries unlike this one but in itself is a political matter is not a war banning me from a completely different set of articles. So hope you see that point as well. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your revert indicates that you believe India is a party to the conflict so that argument holds little weight. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider a war as any armed conflict. In this case it is an armed conflict with India and Pakistan as opposed parties, the fact Indian and Pakistani troops are not directly engaging with each other is immaterial. I would suggest a self-revert yes, the Kashmir conflict is most definitely covered as it is related to India-Pakistan armed conflicts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, reverted. It is not a clear ban vio as per my explanation above as OZ claimed though. And certainly not one worthy of log. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)