User talk:TopGun/Archives/2015/January


Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services

Please review Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services stub article and improve it. Since important article was proposed for deletion by FreeatlastChitchat a serial sectarian contributor now has added Wikipedia:Wikistalking to his portfolio. This proposal is seconded by his fanboy Pjposullivan. Nestwiki (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it's no longer tagged. If it goes to AFD, it might come under WP:NHS to be kept also backed by the fact that it is a government level institution. So don't worry about it. I added one WP:RS to it [1] by only a single look at some search results. So you would be able to add more without much difficulty should you search for refs. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Dominion of Pakistan was between 14-August-1947 and 22-March-1956. Republic of Pakistan was declared on 23-March-1956 and exists today. These pages have Pakistan Movement information which has its own page. These two pages have to be reorganized and have info of their time period. Nestwiki (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That might stand true for Dominion of Pakistan, it needs more detail. But for the main Pakistan article, it's bound to have some information per WP:MOS as parent article. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Ethnic slurs

[2]

Hello TopGun, I noticed your edit and had just that little question: is "Siwash" an ethnic slur now? Thank you for your time . Lotje (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lotje, I reverted another user's removal of massive content and it was too complicated to revert back in the valid edits. Sorry about that, I've no opinion on that specific word; please edit it as you wish. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Which one did you mean? I will be most happy to be of any assistance if at all possible. Lotje (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to your question about Siwash (I don't know if it's a slur or not really). I don't mind if you edit or remove the word. My revert was to the massive removal of sourced / unsourced content indiscriminately. Maybe it got added back or edited while reverting that massive blanking. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

may

may ask you that if you are ahmadi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.105.66 (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

SO WHY DID YOU REMOVE THAT Nawabmalhi SUPPORTS ISRAEL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.3.76 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Because on user pages, users usually display what they feel like is correct about them. Changing that without consent is mostly considered vandalism. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Chamb and Dogra

TopGun need your help on the battle of chamb and dogra 1965 edit, as multiple of Indians are claiming that it was Indian victory or they need sources which justifies Pakistan victory. Your help is needed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamb_and_Dogra Zerefx (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Zerefx, I can not edit the topic area of India Pakistan wars due to a restriction till the end of march (or until I appeal the restriction via editor consensus). It will have to wait or go without me - doesn't matter that much as wikipedia is always a work in progress. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay no problem Zerefx (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming Good faith

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. I would more appreciate it if you tried to help out form a consensus rather than the other way around. Hope you dont mind...I was a bit anxious. Saadkhan12345 (talk)

That's exactly what I said to you. Assume good faith and not assume WP:CABAL when even completely uninvolved editors are telling you to gain consensus for making edits. Telling the other editor to gain consensus for status quo is WP:BATTLE and the status quo already has consensus as per WP:SILENT (as it says, if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so). You've to gain consensus before making any changes. See WP:BRD for how it works. If you don't get a consensus, forcing in your edit will lead to a block. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Lol you're blaming me for all this but hey lets not forget this edit here. It says clearly..."Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." User:Weegeerunner can be considered as someone whos trying to help but Im having a problem accepting the fact that you are an uninvolved editor.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not blaming you for any thing other than you did (the repetitive reverts). Assuming good faith includes avoiding allegations of "editing in friendship" with an editor I have recently met. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Pakistan Armed Forces deployments

The DYK project (nominate) 04:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanction

Hi TopGun, in response to your appeal and discussion on my talk page the topic ban I placed on 20 December is vacated and replaced with TopGun (talk · contribs) is topic banned from making any edit related to Battle of Chawinda, expiring 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC). The same appeals procedure applies. Also based on that discussion you are reminded that discretionary sanctions may be used to impose a one revert rule (such as the wording I mentioned) in response to edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)