Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Indians in Afghanistan

Response
Hi, thanks for moving the statements here. However, AshLin has made some allegations, should I include my response to my own statement as a part of it? -- lTopGunl (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, what are the allegations? Whenaxis talk &middot; &#32;contribs 01:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be his last point (half allegations, half irrelevant to this dispute) and some others. Following was the response:
 * Response to AshLin: If you dispute the reliability of sources provided by me any where you should take that to RSN. I provided sources from main stream media. The disagreement on the other article and the AfD are not relevant to this matter and I'll better not comment on them other than saying I disagree with AshLin's own conclusions. The removal of tag was simply lame... in the complicated dispute, there was no place to start a discussion about the discussion that you started by reverting the dispute tag (obviously it is disputed - removing that tag proves that you do not even acknowledge a dispute). I don't think you can simply state that India has no military presence in Afghanistan as a fact without attribution because the claim itself is contentious. The allegations by Pakistan have enough weight (given the India Pakistan relations and their importance in the region) for this to be a disputed matter.
 * If appropriate, put it in my statement, or resolve other wise. Thanks. -- lTopGunl (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

✅ Whenaxis talk &middot; &#32;contribs 01:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- lTopGunl (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having taken on this content dispute, Whenaxis. We will see what can come out of this mediation. :) JCAla (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. <b style="color:red;">Whenaxis</b> talk &middot; &#32;contribs 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note on discussion
Since it is noted that one dispute at a time is to be discussed, I'll like to note that some are dependent on each other for instance, point 4 of my statement is heavily relying on 3 even though it is still a debate after that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll try to amalgamate points that are closely related to each other into one discussion. <b style="color:red;">Whenaxis</b> talk &middot; &#32;contribs 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Request the mediator to remove the personal attacks made by Darkness Shines along with this cherry picked statement. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not personal attacks. They are statements of fact which can be backed by diffs if requested. Removal of my comments will be a breach of WP:TPG. See WP:TPO Darkness Shines (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to read where it said the mediator can remove comments. And this is not a conduct dispute, for addition of cherry picked out of context diffs either. I will stick to the topic. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The mediator may not remove my comments, as I did not agree to that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines, can you rephrase your statement so that it focuses on the content rather than the editor as per WP:UNCIVIL? I have taken note of your current statement for future references, though. <b style="color:red;">Whenaxis</b> talk &middot; &#32;contribs 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)