User talk:TopGun/Dumped

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, TopGun. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--  Ð ℬig XЯaɣ   13:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * facepalm reporting your own incivility? -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring dispute
I have reported you for edit-warring over Folland Gnat. Please comment there. AshLin (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * facepalm Oh, right.. ofcourse you would. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not post retaliatory warnings like this again when you are warned for editwar or for following some one around - I have no problem if you just happen to edit any articles that I do, I pointed out a pattern to you. -- lTopGunl (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you ok? I made a single revert. If you read the edit summary correctly, one revert was an exemption and just a procedural revert, and if you read the discussion above, it is already over. Be careful when dropping drive by templates. -- lTopGunl (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * TG, this is a day old so it's not really current. But, aren't you under a 1RR restriction? If yes, you've violated that. --regentspark (comment) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Age has nothing to do with an edit war. They can be slow or fast. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that. Just surprised that no one has reported it. TG is amongst a bunch of editors who watch each other like hawks. --regentspark (comment) 19:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nopes, I made a single revert + an exemption... I would have been reported a long time ago if I violated, you're right. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, TopGun. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- D Big X ray  14:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * facepalm For the barnstar? Eh. Have fun there, it wasn't even my edit (even if I suppose that it was an attack on you - you can not revert others' edits - you'll need assistance for that given that you keep on editing other people's edits). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ... All I wanted to do, was just to state it out for all to see that I forgive Raj and that I WON'T retaliate against him (ala tete-for-tate style) for whatever he said/did to me on ANI/WP. With you being my witness, that's all. This WQA thing is totally beyond me and quite frankly I'm equally as flabbergahsted as you are right now. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regretting that I even replied there, trying to learn that one since a few months. Wonder how you stayed away from that ANI! -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I was told to shut up and stay away at all cost, trust the Admins and the sensible editors to speak because if I'm wrong, I'll know about it pretty soon but if I'm right, then there's nothing to worry about. Been doing this since 2008, its a tried and tested formula given to me by an Admin who has left WP, sadly. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Refactoring RfC comments
Hi TopGun, this kind of refactoring of another editor's posts is highly inappropriate. Since I have set up the RfC, if you want to change the format, please discuss them with me. And, please do not touch other people's posts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * facepalm. Incorrect. My edit was to none of his comments rather to the section headings and was completely appropriate. It is, infact, inappropriate and disruptive to post your each single comment in a separate heading to gain more emphasis which is what that user was doing (and still appears to be doing). While talk page guidelines stop me from editing some one's actual comment, nothing stops me from making a section header more reasonable, collapsing a ref box on talk page (which by the way also includes the refs I cited and is not a part of any one's signed comment) and / or editing section headings. My edit was as per WP:TPO (Fixing layout errors, Fixing format errors, Sectioning). Also, you do not WP:OWN the RFC simply because you started it (although it's not like I have changed the format of the RFC). Anyway, you can see that my edits have made it more readable and your comment here is not warranted. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You have moved a comment that outside the RfC section into the RfC section. That is quite prejudicial and I don't think you can claim WP:TPO for it. You are an involved editor who has expressed a strong opinion in the RfC. You cannot any more claim to be neutral. I am having to request  to advise you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Being involved only stops me from closing the RFC or summarizing consensus, it doesn't stop me from fixing blatantly obvious issues in section headings. RP will surely be able to see through how Ghatus is still posting each comment in a new section (and contrary to what your opinion of moving something "unrelated" into RFC, each single comment of his is about the RFC and the first one being his choice to withdraw from it). Any admin / established editor will at worse tell me I might have asked some one else to do this (again NOTBUREAUCRACY and my action was not remotely contentious which you are attempting to make it) and at best drop a few templates on Ghatus's talkpage to avoid doing what he's doing with his comments by posting each one in a fresh heading so I think this should be the last of it. I'm not going to continue this moot discussion with you as obviously no further reverts are being made anyway. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)