User talk:TopGun/Archives/2014/October

Portmanteau Blend Combination on Backronym
Hello, TopGun. Since you judge slogging through archives "such a waste of editor time", let me give you the lowlights of the Portmanteau Wars. Some editors (perhaps including you?) are of the strong opinion that a word made from two other words is called a portmanteau. Other editors are of the equally strong opinion that most words of that type are properly called blends, with portmanteau reserved for a small class of words. (Oh, here's a skirmish now: Note the edifying use of "Duh!") Neither side is entirely wrong, but neither is entirely right. Backronym has used the word combination since December 2012 to try to quiet the entirely silly edit warring. Please, please, don't try to re-ignite the fight. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't judge my reading as a waste of time, I judge the debate that I saw there as a waste of their time. I also saw the 'wars' you linked at the village pump. I'm not of the opinion of any side, rather I'm of the opinion that accurate language is internally linked for the benefit of the reader. I came to the topic while just 'reading through' and I've not been a part of this debate before. If you find 'blend' a better word, use that... but combination is too generic. To be honest, using such a blanket word just to kill a debate between editors doesn't seem to be right. So I suggested to take it out to an RFC (on the talk page of this article) for use specifically in this instance. That's something which is supposed to be used to kill contention such as this. -- lTopGunl (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to make an edit again to revert you and ignite an editwar, but I dropped in my opinion to bend the consensus to some side atleast. Secondly, I do feel portmenteau to be a better word so I added that in the first place, but I'm not the one to make a dispute out of it. Probably when some one summarizes the consensus, atleast there wont be a deadlock. -- lTopGunl (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My first edit here...
since 13 February 2013 :p  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha! A sleeping ogre like me? -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I've been feeling more like an awakened hobbit lately :p  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A gnome and a hobbit... what a peaceful combination! ;) Musterup the courrage to take a look at your watchlist :p ...all the old disputes seem stale. It's easier to keep track of current edits through watchlist. I was irritated of browsing my contributions history so finally took a look at it and that got me editing more again (hopefully I'll avoid disputes because it already took me some time to give time to wikipedia). If some one was to ask me, I'd say most of the wikipedia addiction lies in the watchlist! (not that it's a bad thing). -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. True :)  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back

 * Hey, thanks! Good to see you holding on and still active! I was trying to edit whenever I could but that was dwarfed by my previous editing habits I guess ;) -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Let's not try to blame each other. I've not added my own personal analysis to Wikipedia article on Azad Kashmir. I just added Instrument of Accession with India which is a fact, even as per Wikipedia. It does not violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia in any form. I've provided external link as well from princeton.edu today. Thank you. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) 17:15, 22 October 2014 (CST)

WP:LR - Broken Link
TopGun - The UNHRC link is broken, you can't have it as a reference right. Why we're reverting and quoting that UNHRC is saying as 'administered by India, it's part of India under Jammu and Kashmir page. TopGun - The UNHRC link is broken, you can't have it as a reference right. Why we're reverting and quoting that UNHRC is saying as 'administered by India, it's part of India under Jammu and Kashmir page. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources do not have to be online. The source contains the verifying information (an online link is not part of verifiability). Also see WP:LINKROT. The view that it's a part of India is Indian point of view. That's why the dispute exists. Is it that hard to understand? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

TopGun - If the link itself doesn't exist, how can you say it can stay in Wikipedia. You're not ready for any sort of consesus for any of the changes related to Jammu and Kashmir. As per Accession document it's part of India and Jammu and Kashmir is a state of India and it's not just Indian point of view, it's the world point of view and as per the document of accession as well. It has nothing to do with removing the link. Let's remove the link. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A link is not a reference per se. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your view

 * What is your view about Indicscripts, is it infobox included?.Justice007 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me check it out as I haven't seen this before. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently this is some kind of joke at WikiProject India or some one vandalized their information. If you follow the linked discussion that supposedly supports a 'concensus', the discussion actually concludes there is no such consensus:
 * "There is ultimately no consensus about which language to use, but I see a fair bit of support in regards to IPA and pronunciation and would think this would help normal readers, so I am going to say that 'Using IPA to clarify pronunciation' is the consensus of this discussion, all other sections do not meet a level of consensus needed to pass."
 * Feel free to use as you like in lede or infobox and even fix that misinformation. The conclusion of the discussion clearly states that IPA should be used for clarification but does not prohibit using Indic. I tend to attract hounds so I'll refrain from going and editing that out at the Project page ;). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks, I thought the same. Justice007 (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted in Indic scripts at Sir Syed and Allama Iqbal. Hope I didn't undo any other fixes you made but don't hesitate to revert anything else that I might have undone. Also replied to your query. WP:INDICSCRIPTS isn't reliable source of policy. Always go with a wider consensus when it's about a large number of articles (Wiki project pages are often obscure). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually I was hesitated to remove Indic scripts but when I saw an admin did that at several articles, I thought may be I took the consensus in a wrong concept, but I was right as you are, now I'll try to re-add to those articles that are affected of---.Justice007 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Admins do not have anymore authority in the capacity of an editor anymore than you do but they usually are well aware of these things so I don't know why that really happened. So you can revert those and cite this. People who search google or wikipedia in Indic scripts should be able to find Engilsh wikipedia articles of the subejcts too as they are more complete and informative than any other sister projects of wikipedia. I don't understand why anyone would want to remove them.. maybe you can ask them next time they revert you ;) ...When I face such things that affect a huge number of articles, I go around asking other editors before taking action. You did the right thing. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The on the RfC clarified their close here stating "The consensus is to remove the scripts and replace them with IPA to clarify the pronunciation" (bolding original). If you have questions regarding the close of the RfC that resulted in this consensus you can ask for further clarification from the closing admin. If you're dissatisfied with the results you could start a new RfC to gauge consensus. What you shouldn't do is disregard the outcome if you don't agree with it (based your "I don't understand why anyone would want to remove them" comment above)., please do not continue to restore the scripts unless and until there is consensus to override the RfC close.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am already busy to revert my own edits relating Indic script, it is a lot of work, but I do time to time if I see any article to---, anyhow thanks for. Justice007 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, I am not going to disregard the outcome, I wait until further discussion.Justice007 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I don't have any personal preference with regard to the use of the scripts, I'm only removing them in accordance with the consensus of the RfC if I happen to come across them while doing other BLP-related clean-up on articles. If consensus eventually swings in the other direction I'll leave 'em in. Easy peasy! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus swings, and the edit isn't even controversial. Whatever is more useful to wikipedia should stay. And adding the script helps the article to be found more easily and also implies that the subject is native to the given language. When 'no consensus' closures happen like this it's best to leave things as is in each article. As an uninvolved editor, what I got from the RFC that is linked at Indicscripts... the admin saying 'no consensus' didn't leave me any space to go and see his talk page for further clarifications. This may also allow some room for deciding as per individual articles until a wide consensus is actually established. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Adding the script helps the article to be found more easily and also implies that the subject is native to the given language" is your opinion and does not reflect the consensus gauged via the RfC. You are also misinterpreting the close as it was not a "no-consensus" closure; the close stated that there was "no consensus as to which language to use" (italics mine) and that "Using IPA to clarify pronunciation' is the consensus of this discussion". This was even further clarified by the closing admin in the link I previously provided above and which is also included in the close box of the RfC (specifically "The consensus is to remove the scripts and replace them with IPA to clarify the pronunciation"). You believe the scripts are helpful and should be included, however this was not the consensus of the community. You are not helping whatsoever by telling him to ignore the consensus based on your misinterpretation of the close. Again, you are free to disagree with the consensus, but you need to abide by it until a new consensus emerges. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not claim my opinion to be a part of the RFC (I said the closure states 'ultimately no consensus' along with my own suggestion as an editor on why the script is useful), that doesn't mean it is not a part of the consensus. The fact that I am disagreeing with it means it is changing (if if a bit.. but then again it was marginal from what I get). I did not ask him to fly by all the articles and add the script only that removing them is of a negative impact which. Secondly, I did not (and could not have) read the talkpage comments / clarifications of the closer before you linked them. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You told Justice007 that "this is some kind of joke at WikiProject India or some one vandalized their information" and to "feel free to use as you like in lede or infobox and even fix that misinformation". How is that not misleading them? It was poor advice at best. I also don't understand why you "could not have" read the talk page comments of the closer before I linked them, included the link in the close itself. This entire discussion has outlived any useful purpose at this point. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not condone fly by re-adding everywhere, what I did tell him what I would have done myself for any articles (without the clarification comments it read 'no consensus')... further, the one I added myself during this discussion was not just limited under WP:INDIA topics. Anyway, I'm off as you are right about the purpose of this conversation. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about this consensus
As an unrelated query to my previous comments, I am concerned about my own editing regarding Urdu names since above discussion has put me in doubt too so it would be a good idea to clarify from some one more aware of that debate.

&, with reference to above discussion on the consensus about Indic scripts, is that limited to articles only under the scope of WP:INDIA, India as a country or the Indian subcontinent? Or is it the general consensus for all articles with respect to Indic scripts? I might have missed other linked discussions or follow ups too inspite of trying to go through details as the closure and the RFC options are not too clear; as I understand from the 'options' in that RFC that this was about India related articles but I don't want to make another judgment on it before knowing more.

Additionally, Urdu script is not even considered Indic script as per their own articles, does a related discussion or the fact that the thread title was 'native languages in lead' include it into that consensus which was just established at the WP India project page and not by wider community to decide for all non english scripts?

If it does not cover WP:PAK articles and Persio-Arabic / Urdu Scripts then this edit on an article or similar edits won't be coming under its scope. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my understanding, WP:INDICSCRIPTS applies to WikiProject India articles and not neccessarily other articles. We don't have any such consensus at WikiProject Pakistan pertaining to the removal of scripts. Indeed, thousands of Pakistan articles on Wikipedia use local script transliterations. Also, per se, Urdu, Shahmukhi Punjabi, Arabic Sindhi, Balochi, Pashto etc. are not Indic scripts, so WP:INDICSCRIPTS does not apply here. My 2 cents.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is true, it would only be right to follow that consensus on pages under WP India (for which & at which the consensus was established) and not at pages that are further in the scope of WP Pak + WP India, only in WP Pak or articles in general. The second part about Urdu not being Indic script is also a concern but that might be marginally inclusive in the consensus at max for the WP India only articles. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it only applies to articles under the scope of Wikiproject India, however the right person to ask would be the closer of the RfC.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding as well. This was heavily discussed on WT:INDIA and the consensus was for the removal of indic scripts from India articles. For the purposes of that discussion, Urdu (nastaliq), shahmukhi etc were considered indic (as in any native script in use in India). I believe Pakistan related articles are not covered by that consensus (though, given the multiplicity of scripts in Pakistan, you might want to think about this). The consensus only related to the lead (not infoboxes nor the main body). Really glad to see you back TopGun. And if mar4d is back as well, then this bodes well for Pakistan related articles. --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt any disputes were caused in Pakistan related articles due to scripts. During my years of editing, I've seen even newbies and IPs fixing the scripts rather disputing. Currently mother tongue + Urdu is mostly being used. If needed, it can be further refine it at WT:PAK about when to use what though I don't know how much that is needed given no contention (other than this current confusion that got ported over to these articles from WT:INDIA consensus). FWIW, there's no more need for to remove Urdu scripts from Pakistan related articles (above section already made him redo and undo a few times). Thanks! Still on a trial & error to edit weekly instead of getting addicted or only sticking to minor edits, but the overhauls I participated in for FAC etc don't look so good now. Maybe time for another attempt to add quality content. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For me it was a much work adding and removing the Indic scripts, anyhow, what is the next step, how to settle the dispute?. Needed consensus again?.Justice007 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Above input from many neutral editors makes it quite clear, WP:INDICSCRIPTS do not apply to Pakistan related articles... so you can remove them from the articles that are only related to India and not to Pakistan. See regentspark's comment for your question about its application to infobox. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now clarity is there, thanks to all. Justice007 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gilgit-Baltistan
Dear Topgun, you look an experienced editor. Can you see that User:Delljvc was changing the titles of the articles that were cited. I didn't add anything. I was just reverting his edits, which are half-baked. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I know that and took that in to consideration while reverting. The edit he made was towards neutrality. All points of views are required to be balanced. Hopefully you'll get that your 're-addition' of the previous edit was what I reverted. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh? The title of a cited article should be exactly what was in the source. Fiddling with it would be POV! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * External sources are not subject to wikipedia NPOV policy as they are not published by the wiki. And given that sources exist for all these names (covering all POVs), as wikipedia editors we should use the neutral names. Is it really worth the time to dispute that when you can make so many other improvements to the article? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Above, my bad, I thought you meant titles of the articles as used in content. Should have read the full markup. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't blanket revert edits by editors you disagree with. I've reverted that edit, because it changes the titles of the cited sources. You can edit war about whether Wikipedia should use "POK" or "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" to your heart's content (or at least until you get blocked), but blanket replacement like that is disruptive, and that you would restore such an edit suggests a battleground mentality. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey.. I just realized I was reading the diffs through the highlighted markup only and after seeing some new editors recently reverting PoK in other articles, I didn't notice that the word PoK was in the citation's title and not in the content. I would have self reverted, had I noticed earlier; instead I was debating of not including PoK it in the content and sticking to neutrality with 'administered' as discussed numerous times. And I just saw where I was wrong after reading your comment. I guess I've been a bit out of touch with the wiki markup. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Got it! -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow