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 15:32, 1 December 2014 editTopGun (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,007 edits →Balochistan conflict← Previous edit Revision as of 11:09, 3 December 2014 edit undoOccultZone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers224,089 edits →WP:ARBIND: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit →
Line 99: Line 99:
::Fine, I will. I must clarify that I actually reverted this edit after I was hunting the edits of ]. Not that I really participated on this page or any related page of Balochi conflict before. ] (]) 15:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC) ::Fine, I will. I must clarify that I actually reverted this edit after I was hunting the edits of ]. Not that I really participated on this page or any related page of Balochi conflict before. ] (]) 15:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I know you were hunting the user from ] (it might be a valid split like the ] if it is done right, I can't vouch for the IP's edits here).. actually I was stalking him too as it was a very bold split.. I actually informed ] of this back then, but I found the revert in this case indiscriminate as other users had reinstated them independently which makes it valid edit / revert, so hopefully you'll understand my reason for reverting you... I can agree to disagree on your views about the group. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC) :::Thanks. I know you were hunting the user from ] (it might be a valid split like the ] if it is done right, I can't vouch for the IP's edits here).. actually I was stalking him too as it was a very bold split.. I actually informed ] of this back then, but I found the revert in this case indiscriminate as other users had reinstated them independently which makes it valid edit / revert, so hopefully you'll understand my reason for reverting you... I can agree to disagree on your views about the group. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:'''

The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding ], ], and ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->

You haven't been notified for more than a year. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:09, 3 December 2014



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.
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 with a civil note (if you're comfortable with wiki markup).

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 9:12 PM (+5 UTC), where I live.
Chess, everyone!

Make a move...
View current game

TopGun vs. World
Chessboard Moves
abcdefgh
8f8 black rookc7 white rookf7 white bishopd6 black pawnf6 black kingh6 black pawna5 black pawnb5 black pawnf5 black pawng5 black pawnd4 white knightb3 white pawnd3 white pawng3 white pawna2 white pawne2 white pawnf2 white pawnh2 white pawng1 white king8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
TopGun to move...
# TopGun World
1 b3 Nf6
2 g3 g6
3 Bb2 Bg7
4 Bg2 c6
5 Na3 Qa5
6 Nc4 Qc7
7 d3 b5
8 Nd2 Qa5
9 Nh3 Bb7
10 O-O Bh6
11 Ne4 Bg7
12 Qd2 Qxd2
13 Nxd2 Na6
14 Rfc1 Nc5
15 c4 Bf8
16 xb5 Rc8
17 Rxc5 xb5
18 Rxc8+ Bxc8
19 Ne4 Bg7
20 Nxf6+ xf6
21 Rc1 O-O
22 Rc5 a6
23 Bd5 d6
24 Rc7 h6
25 Nf4 g5
26 Ng6 Rd8
27 Ne7+ Kh7
28 Nxc8 f5
29 Bxg7 Kxg7
30 Ne7 Kf6
31 Nc6 Re8
32 Nd4 Rf8
33 Nc6 Kg6
34 Bxf7 a5



Picture of the day 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is an American silent film directed by Stuart Paton and released on December 24, 1916. Based primarily on the 1870 novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas by Jules Verne, the film also incorporates elements from Verne's 1875 novel The Mysterious Island. This was the first motion picture filmed underwater. Actual underwater cameras were not used, but a system of watertight tubes and mirrors allowed the camera to shoot reflected images of underwater scenes staged in shallow sunlit waters in the Bahamas. For the scene featuring a battle with an octopus, cinematographer John Ernest Williamson devised a viewing chamber called the "photosphere", a 6-by-10-foot (1.8-by-3.0-metre) steel globe in which a cameraman could be placed. The film was made by the Universal Film Manufacturing Company (now Universal Pictures), not then known as a major motion picture studio, and took two years to make, at the cost of $500,000.Film credit: Stuart Paton Archive – More featured pictures...

Balochistan conflict

In place of reverting to nonsensical edits, try making a self revert. It is a separatist movement, not terrorist. Per whole section body. It is obvious that there is some off-site canvassing going on, because I don't see any edit war over this common term since 99.247.57.5, a sock puppet got blocked. Niether these changes have any consensus or we used this term(terrorist) ever before. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Two other editors independently reverted it in and I found your revert and calling them sock indiscriminately disruptive for which I reverted you... they are recognized as terrorist org in Pak and Britain... so WP:CCC? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It all started after a block evading sock. None of the citations actually cite them as Terrorist group. Do any of them does? If so, then change the whole article wherever they are listed as Separatist. Every new change requires consensus so it is you who has Misplaced Pages:BURDEN. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
1) I reverted you because of Zerefx and the second IP, both of which are not blocked or evading a block as far as I see, 2) the lede says it already that they are terrorists, infobox is a mere reflection of article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
"is the most widely-known Baloch separatist group" thus your edit including those 3 sounds nonsensical. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why it makes it alright for you to editwar and call other editors sock just because you think you are correct about the statement. For your WP:OR / WP:SYNTH from twisting the lede statement, all I have to say is separatists and terrorists are not a mutually exclusive group. That makes both versions equally correct even by your standards. Though you are free to editwar with Zerefx and the IP till you get blocked. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought we have already moved on to talk about the edit rather than talking about the IPs or users who have recently became interested in edit warring on that page. You said that infobox is a mere reflection of article, but article labels them as a separatist group. But how they are not different now? Read Misplaced Pages:TERRORIST. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And the person behind this nonsensical edit, has a epic POV. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I said the article does not label them a separatist group while excluding them from the terrorist group. They are not mutually exclusive terms. See WP:POVEDITOR. Every one has a POV (recognizing that is the first step towards resolving a conflict). Focus on the edit and if that makes the article POV... try discussing it at talk the usual way maybe? I find Zerefx's comment driven by sentiment but not by a point of view as any sane person would call civilian bombings terrorist attacks... that is for the article talkpage though. I can only advise you to resolve it there. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I will. I must clarify that I actually reverted this edit after I was hunting the edits of 99.247.57.5. Not that I really participated on this page or any related page of Balochi conflict before. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I know you were hunting the user from history of Pakistan (it might be a valid split like the history of the Republic of India if it is done right, I can't vouch for the IP's edits here).. actually I was stalking him too as it was a very bold split.. I actually informed WT:PAK of this back then, but I found the revert in this case indiscriminate as other users had reinstated them independently which makes it valid edit / revert, so hopefully you'll understand my reason for reverting you... I can agree to disagree on your views about the group. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBIND

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33

You haven't been notified for more than a year. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)