Misplaced Pages

User talk:TopGun: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:03, 5 January 2012 editTopGun (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,007 edits →January 2012← Previous edit Revision as of 11:05, 5 January 2012 edit undoTopGun (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,007 edits →January 2012Next edit →
Line 141: Line 141:
::Correction: not my preferred version, the ] (which ever that would be). I've been more active than you, JCAla or DS in discussing the content. I will try not to revert so many times so as not to editwar but ] does not apply on me since he was the one adding content repeatedly instead of waiting for consensus. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) ::Correction: not my preferred version, the ] (which ever that would be). I've been more active than you, JCAla or DS in discussing the content. I will try not to revert so many times so as not to editwar but ] does not apply on me since he was the one adding content repeatedly instead of waiting for consensus. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


{{unblock|reason=The reason given for block is invalid since time stamps say the opposite. I did not do it as a reaction to his block since that was done after my edit. My edit as recognized by the blocking admin was in spirit of ] (I made two reverts). I waited for 2 days and invited the user to discuss before making the reverts. Also I don't take responsibility for acrimony caused by ''other'' users, I've always been civil and only reverted on reasonable basis. I know I've editwarred before but not today and I was blocked for that then, other articles where I reverted were similar BRD reverts (yes some times two but removal of any bold edits is correct per BRD. Also note that I requested protection of the page (as the block template itself suggests) which was declined by Magog. Now for blocking me for exactly what I said was going to happen, not due to me but by others as seen (given that I BRD reverted bold edits when they weren't getting consensus), is a reason enough for this appeal. Further, the editwar has already been prevented by blocking the other user and I do not even need to continue since he wont be able to re add the content which I challenged. The preventive purpose of the block per that does not stand per the timestamps given for his block and my revert. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)}} {{unblock|reason=The reason given for block is invalid since time stamps say the opposite. I did not do it as a reaction to his block since that was done after my edit. My edit as recognized by the blocking admin was in spirit of ] (I made two reverts). I waited for 2 days and invited the user to discuss before making the reverts. Also I don't take responsibility for acrimony caused by ''other'' users, I've always been civil and only reverted on reasonable basis. I know I've editwarred before but not today and I was blocked for that then, other articles where I reverted were similar BRD reverts (yes some times two but removal of any bold edits is correct per BRD. Also note that I requested protection of the page (as the block template itself suggests) which was declined by Magog. Now for blocking me for exactly what I said was going to happen, not due to me but by others as seen (given that I BRD reverted bold edits when they weren't getting consensus), is a reason enough for this appeal. Further, the editwar has already been prevented by blocking the other user and I do not even need to continue since he wont be able to re add the content which I challenged. The preventive purpose of the block per that does not stand per the timestamps given for his block and my revert. Magog has been repeatedly accused by the other side for blocking only them (when they are disruptive) and this seems to be making it "fair" as he suggests but that's not what blocks are for. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)}}


== Talkback == == Talkback ==

Revision as of 11:05, 5 January 2012




Archiving icon
Archives

Manual archives:

Semi-automatic (filtered) archives

Automatic archives:


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This page has archives. Sections older than 4166.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.




Please create new sections at the bottom of the page.

If we were already talking on this page but the conversation is gone:
you'll find our conversation in one of the archives unless you were rude. You can revive it by creating a new discussion here and linking it to the archive and you can even move it back with attribution in edit summaries if you were civil.

If I have left you a message on your talk page, you can reply there, but remember to add a {{tb|<replace this with your username>|ts=~~~~~}} template to my talk page because I might not be watchlisting your talkpage if we don't interact regularly. I will do the same for you if you ask me to or if you have not recently commented on my talkpage in the discussion.

Note that it is 9:24 AM (+5 UTC), where I live.
Wikihounds at work



















Removing POV tags

Just a suggestion: if someone adds a POV tag to an article, and doesn't appear to be making any attempt to discuss, you could try to start the discussion on your own on the talk page. I would not suggest removing problem tags until the other person clearly is not going to discuss it, even after you've made an attempt. Assuming good faith compels us to believe that Darkness Shines believes there is a serious problem with the article but perhaps lacks the time (or energy) to post a proper explanation on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue disputed on talk page was of a section below which already had a tag. I do assume good faith for every one making edits, but this one has a context. Inter-Services Intelligence‎ was tag bombed by the same user (even after I added his edits back myself) and still stays so - and I didn't remove those since the user was repeatedly adding them. This one appeared similar drive by tagging. Even though I removed the tag, I explained it properly in the edit summary, but I'll start a discussion myself next time before removing tags (I have done that on the previous page mentioned too with no result other than "the tags will stay or I'll revert"). --lTopGunl (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Image balance

Got a better idea with photos. See Talk:Pakistan#Using the switch feature for images. Mar4d (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking and replying there. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I was just about bring this up on Talk:Pakistan. I'm still trying to understand how this function apparently works, and from what I gather, the photos don't necessarily change every time the page is loaded. I just refreshed the India article several times, only to find the same pictures. Whenever I open up the page after a couple of hours or minutes though, then I notice some of the images changing. I think we should ask somewhere as to how frequently the images rotate in this function, maybe at Talk:India. Mar4d (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Talk:India will only be useful if the adding editors are still there. WP:Help desk would be the right place. I'll try checking its values till then. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it changed once in my sandbox. I think it depends on number of loads. Here's the help page. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I've posted a thread anyway at the Help desk. Let's see what anyone else might have to say about it. Mar4d (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, keeping a tab on that. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol.....just saw the help page you linked. Almost felt like vomiting after trying to read all the complicated alien codes. Mar4d (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Haha. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just saw the thread at the Help desk. Oh well, something is always better than nothing; it's not like there needs to be a new picture every time the page is loaded, a periodic basis is fine like the way it happens at the Indian article. I'll come up with my viewpoints on what pics are appropriate for the article some time soon. Mar4d (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it will do. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Btw, is it just my mind playing tricks with me, or have you really been online for the past full 24 hours? :o Mar4d (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Lol, I have.... :p --lTopGunl (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Unbelievable!.......gotta give you full credit for your Wikipediholism. Mar4d (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Haha.... will be busy now for a week so now a few times a day maybe. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, looks like I'm going for a second round without a break - just took a look at my freaky contributions list :o --lTopGunl (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird stuff

Resolved: --lTopGunl (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm experiencing some technical issue with the search box. When I put in a search term, I'm not getting any search results for it but just the usual line You may create the page but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Are you having anything similiar on your computer? Just want to confirm whether it's an issue on my side... Mar4d (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's working fine. By pass your cache (Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R) and then try. Tried any instant search results that drop out? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, not working. Thanks for the tip though; I'll try and see some assistance up at the technical help section of Village pump. Mar4d (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, try help desk as well.. that is more active. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
It's working again, all good. Mar4d (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Cache? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I tried the keys you mentioned above and deleted my browsing history a couple of times. After a while, it just started working again. I have no idea what really caused the strange behaviour. Mar4d (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Happens with corrupted cache. No worries. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Templates?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why is it not allowed to template your talk page while you appear to think it ok to plaster the mall over mine? And please do not make accusations of edit warring when I have not broken 3RR. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your page is the last place where I'd want to edit... but that was a pre-requisite for AN3, --lTopGunl (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I count 4 at 65 war and 3 at separatist movement (inclusive of reverts to anyone other than IP). The admin will be able to count for himself. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
As you can see from the diffs now provided only two reverts per article, you appear to be counting my adding tags as a revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, adding tag is a revert since that was being reverted / objected too. And I don't see a BRD cycle completed anywhere, you just made top on reverts. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Adding a tag is not a revert. You are also wrong on Inter-Services Intelligence Your diffs do not show reverts, Removing unsourced content is not a revert. Adding new content is not a revert. There is but one revert on the article, which diff I already have pointed out at AN3 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
When your edit is reverted, any edit of yours is considered a further revert. I don't want to continue this debate here... let the admin decide. And you were supposed to stay away from this page. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question you could help answer on the reference desk

Sorry that I've been on your case recently about sourcing. On a completely different note, you might be able to help answer a question over at the reference desk.

You've indicated that you speak Punjabi. Would you mind taking a look at a question on the reference desk: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities#Hindi_.26_Punjabi_Names_for_Mount_Everest? Thanks a lot. Buddy431 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Taliban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Now to clarify: you've gone ahead and revert warred on Taliban right after I just blocked Darkness Shines for it. In the idea of keeping everything fair, I had to block your account. Let me explain:

  • To any reviewing admins, please note this has happened in a vacuum, but there has been some real acrimony goign on between users with Indian and Pakistani nationalist-POVs recently.
  • I've kept the block at 24 hours, to keep it synced with DS's block. I didn't escalate it, because I believe you were abiding by the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BRD moreso than DS.
  • You have been edit warring consistently across other articles, and you have two previous blocked so you should know that's not OK.
  • And most importantly, I also think DS and JCAla have a decent point that you are quick to revert and slow to come to consensus. I don't see any attempt on your part any more than theirs to come up with a medium ground, a mediation so to speak, where neither side is 100% happy but everyone finds it livable. It takes two to tango.

So please understand why you've been blocked. If you have any questions let me know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1)My revert at Taliban: "07:21, January 5, 2012‎", your block of Darkness Shines: "07:24, January 5, 2012‎" 2) I didn't know that you blocked DS as trivially apparent from last point and I didn't know you were going to. 3)I reverted on BRD, yes this was the second revert but that content addition was inflammatory. 4)You need to see the filibustering at the last section of the article, which was on his part and not mine. 5) See my attempts to come to consensus at the same section mentioned for this edit as compared to other editor who made none other than simply striking off objections unilaterally calling them "not-fit", 6) Question: DS was constantly adding further objectionable content instead of discussing the first part which I did not revert for days so as to not editwar. This was crossing of line for me... so what noticeboard is correct to report that to? (don't tell me DRN when there are no attempts - since I don't consider striking off of objections as discussion - made to discuss). --lTopGunl (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I hate to say that I agree with Magog. I've seen you say "Discuss" quite a bit, but only when the article is on your preferred revision. When your block expires, remember the advice you've given to others: there is no WP:DEADLINE. Try enforcing a 1RR on yourself.--v/r - TP 02:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Correction: not my preferred version, the status quo (which ever that would be). I've been more active than you, JCAla or DS in discussing the content. I will try not to revert so many times so as not to editwar but WP:DEADLINE does not apply on me since he was the one adding content repeatedly instead of waiting for consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

TopGun (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason given for block is invalid since time stamps say the opposite. I did not do it as a reaction to his block since that was done after my edit. My edit as recognized by the blocking admin was in spirit of WP:BRD (I made two reverts). I waited for 2 days and invited the user to discuss before making the reverts. Also I don't take responsibility for acrimony caused by other users, I've always been civil and only reverted on reasonable basis. I know I've editwarred before but not today and I was blocked for that then, other articles where I reverted were similar BRD reverts (yes some times two but removal of any bold edits is correct per BRD. Also note that I requested protection of the page (as the block template itself suggests) which was declined by Magog. Now for blocking me for exactly what I said was going to happen, not due to me but by others as seen (given that I BRD reverted bold edits when they weren't getting consensus), is a reason enough for this appeal. Further, the editwar has already been prevented by blocking the other user and I do not even need to continue since he wont be able to re add the content which I challenged. The preventive purpose of the block per that does not stand per the timestamps given for his block and my revert. Magog has been repeatedly accused by the other side for blocking only them (when they are disruptive) and this seems to be making it "fair" as he suggests but that's not what blocks are for. lTopGunl (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The reason given for block is invalid since time stamps say the opposite. I did not do it as a reaction to his block since that was done after my edit. My edit as recognized by the blocking admin was in spirit of ] (I made two reverts). I waited for 2 days and invited the user to discuss before making the reverts. Also I don't take responsibility for acrimony caused by ''other'' users, I've always been civil and only reverted on reasonable basis. I know I've editwarred before but not today and I was blocked for that then, other articles where I reverted were similar BRD reverts (yes some times two but removal of any bold edits is correct per BRD. Also note that I requested protection of the page (as the block template itself suggests) which was declined by Magog. Now for blocking me for exactly what I said was going to happen, not due to me but by others as seen (given that I BRD reverted bold edits when they weren't getting consensus), is a reason enough for this appeal. Further, the editwar has already been prevented by blocking the other user and I do not even need to continue since he wont be able to re add the content which I challenged. The preventive purpose of the block per that does not stand per the timestamps given for his block and my revert. Magog has been repeatedly accused by the other side for blocking only them (when they are disruptive) and this seems to be making it "fair" as he suggests but that's not what blocks are for. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The reason given for block is invalid since time stamps say the opposite. I did not do it as a reaction to his block since that was done after my edit. My edit as recognized by the blocking admin was in spirit of ] (I made two reverts). I waited for 2 days and invited the user to discuss before making the reverts. Also I don't take responsibility for acrimony caused by ''other'' users, I've always been civil and only reverted on reasonable basis. I know I've editwarred before but not today and I was blocked for that then, other articles where I reverted were similar BRD reverts (yes some times two but removal of any bold edits is correct per BRD. Also note that I requested protection of the page (as the block template itself suggests) which was declined by Magog. Now for blocking me for exactly what I said was going to happen, not due to me but by others as seen (given that I BRD reverted bold edits when they weren't getting consensus), is a reason enough for this appeal. Further, the editwar has already been prevented by blocking the other user and I do not even need to continue since he wont be able to re add the content which I challenged. The preventive purpose of the block per that does not stand per the timestamps given for his block and my revert. Magog has been repeatedly accused by the other side for blocking only them (when they are disruptive) and this seems to be making it "fair" as he suggests but that's not what blocks are for. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The reason given for block is invalid since time stamps say the opposite. I did not do it as a reaction to his block since that was done after my edit. My edit as recognized by the blocking admin was in spirit of ] (I made two reverts). I waited for 2 days and invited the user to discuss before making the reverts. Also I don't take responsibility for acrimony caused by ''other'' users, I've always been civil and only reverted on reasonable basis. I know I've editwarred before but not today and I was blocked for that then, other articles where I reverted were similar BRD reverts (yes some times two but removal of any bold edits is correct per BRD. Also note that I requested protection of the page (as the block template itself suggests) which was declined by Magog. Now for blocking me for exactly what I said was going to happen, not due to me but by others as seen (given that I BRD reverted bold edits when they weren't getting consensus), is a reason enough for this appeal. Further, the editwar has already been prevented by blocking the other user and I do not even need to continue since he wont be able to re add the content which I challenged. The preventive purpose of the block per that does not stand per the timestamps given for his block and my revert. Magog has been repeatedly accused by the other side for blocking only them (when they are disruptive) and this seems to be making it "fair" as he suggests but that's not what blocks are for. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Talkback

Hello, TopGun. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AshLin (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:
User talk:TopGun: Difference between revisions Add topic