User talk:Mar4d/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

December 2017

Your recent editing history at India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —MBL ^Talk 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Declining CSDs

Hi there, I noticed you declined the G4 CSD nomination on Mandviwalla_Entertainment because they had three "notable" films listed, however the nomination criteria was about a prior AfD which also addressed this and it was not substantially different from the previous creation. Could you explain? Thanks! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your multiple COI troubles with multiple editors on multiple India-related topics, and suspected covering of your tracks by selectively archiving your talk page history

Dear editor,

My respect to you:
I come in goodfaith with respect for you, respect for your efforts as wikipidian and respect for your love and patriotism for your country (pakistani flag places on your page). We do not know each other, I did know of you prior to today.

You made edits to my edits, I was alarmed by your pattern:
Few weeks ago, as an IP I made edits to List of India's overseas military bases. My final edit was here on 7 November 2017. Subsequently, you made 3 edits over my edits. This is a long article. You touched "only my edits" and "only related to India". So far so good, no problems with all these facts mentioned thus far. It is my attempt to reach out to you in a cordial goodfaith way to be be kind to each other. After setting this cordial stage, I have the following "specific and actionable" concerns about what you did:

A. Your suspected-COI 3-edits used in the 3-reverts manner to delete my earlier India-related edits. I added 12 Indian bases at the end of my final edit on 7 Nov 2017. You made 3 edits on 21 December 2017 and reduced the number of Indian bases to 6 or 7.

(A.1) Do not make big changes without discussing on the talkpage first: You have been on wikipedia for over 8 years. Without going into weather your actions were valid or invalid, first of all your surgical edits were the "significant changes" you made to my edits. It is a good wikipedia practice to discuss on talk page first to build consensus. Specially, if you delete such large chunks. More so, if you delete the significant chunk from the contentious topic. Even more so, if your are deleting from a topic that is largely perceived as a rival nation/topic of the loyalties flag-flaunted on your own personal user page e.g. Pakistan-flag user repeatedly antagonizing multiple editors on multiple India-related topics. As an experienced editor, instead of making attempt to discuss it on the article talk page or my talk page, you just went ahead and deleted. You not did not revert, but you actually deleted in "3 cumulative edits" akin to 3-reverts. This creates natural alarm regarding the suspected "disguised" 3-revert i.e. gaming the system.

(A.2) Frivolous excuses to delete sourced content: In your first edit at 14:07 pm you actually deleted my India-related edit when you deleted Mozambique and Oman (your first indirect revert and COI) with the observation in your edit comments "rmv two which offer zero info about overseas base". I would love to take this as goodfaith. But, your reason seems frivolous. For example, My citations in the Oman section (deleted you) clearly show India has on-site infrastructure there. My edit did not "bloat" that infrastructure to be a full base, but a listening post. This is clear enough, good enough to be retained in-line with source and in-line with the spirit of the article. Hence, you must leave it in there. You also used this opportunity to delete Madagascar. You took a gap of 6 hours, may be you were tired or busy, or were just checking if no one objects to your first revert/deletion then you can go ahead with more reverts/deletions? I might be wrong on this, I am keeping open mind to both sides of the coin. I would love to assume goodfaith that you meant well. I will explain further, why it becomes harder to continue to assume the goodfaith, when all your cumulative actions towards me and other editors are put together.

(A.3) Misleading excuse to delete the additional valid content (e.g. object to one/few, but silently delete many more valid ones): In your second edit/revert at 20:12 you deleted Maldives section (your second indirect revert and COI) with the observation in your edit comments "The ref only mentions technology transfer - nothing about actual physical presence on the island". For example, when my citations supporting the Maldives section (created by me, deleted by you) clearly shows India has on-ground radars and infrastructure that are part of India's own security grid. It is not a mere technology transfer (your POV inspired by your COI). It is frivolous to interpret sources in such COI way.

(A.4) And yet again repeated this pattern to complete the 3-reverts disguised-as-3-cumulative-edits: Either in goodfaith or just emboldened by now, in your third edit/revert few minutes later at 20:21 pm, you deleted 3 more sections (Fiji, Vietnam, an Others) (your third indirect revert and COI) with the observation in your edit comments "Ditto - berthing rights and port construction don't qualify as bases". For example, the my citations supporting the Fiji section clearly show India has defence pact with Fiji with on-site "intelligence station".

(A.5) Repeat gaming the system, despite being warned repeatedly by many other editors: Your pattern of 3 cumulative edits self-evidently in the manner of 3 reverts to surgically remove "only" the targeted India-related content from an otherwise large article where content unrelated to India was left untouched by you, the Pakistani editor who has also been warned repeatedly by others editors for the India-related edit-wars, 3-reverts violations and COI, makes it extremely difficult to stretch the benefit of goodfaith to your behavior.

B. COI pattern: On that large article, you left everything else untouched. You only touched my edits and you only touched India. Nothing wrong with this. But when all this is seen in the context you being as a Pakistani editor with Pakistani flag in his user page combined with the point-1 above, I need to draw your attention to WP:COI. COI guidelines are clear. You must refrain from making edits to "all" India-related topics, specially with your "deeply patriotic Pakistani loyalty" which repeatedly made you receive multiple warnings in the past on India-related articles.

B.1. You were told off by the editor Kautilya for India-related COI: I noticed you have also been asked by a second editor Kautilya3 on 1 Dec 2017 on other India-related articles to avoid COI here.

B.2. You were warned by the editor MBlaze Lightning for India-related 3-reverts and edit-warring: You were once again warned on 27 December 2017 by a 3rd editor MBlaze Lightning here for edit-warring and violation of 3-revert rule related to yet another India-related article COI.

In short, this is an alarming deep-rooted "COI Pakistani-editor on India topics" pattern.

C. Selectively archiving warnings from talk page (could it be an attempt to cover the tracks)? On top of this, I noticed you have archived from your talk page all the negative warnings/comments/advisary issued to your by other editors. This itself might not be wrong, if done in harmless way. Repeatedly getting in India-related COI troubles with multiple editors on several articles within a short span of time as a Pakistani editor with Pakistani flag flying on your page, raises many red flags in the minds of non-Indian third-party unbiased editors. Any one can love their nation, without unloving their neighboring nations. Without unloving other editors. Without repeatedly getting in multiple troubles. From the pattern it is obvious, you did not learn from those warnings, simply archived the warnings, and went on repeating the same troubles with other editors, because negative tracks have been archived from your talk page?

D. Selectively archiving on your talk page canvassing from other editors with similar agenda to push (disguise collaborations and attempts of ganging up)? I apologies if I am wrong here. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mar4d&diff=814832001&oldid=814473680 see here1], here2, here3 and so on. All this is on your most recent history, without me having to put much effort beyond a casual glance at your talkpage history. I can go through your history and list many more. You archived only two types of content from your talk page (a) warnings to you, and (b) canvassing by you/other editors with similar "agenda/patriotism (bias perhaps)" asking to collaborate on similar agenda (suspected POV/COI), a form of canvassing, specially when seen in the light of those things being disguised/archived, but other harmless/banal stuff left on your talk page. Patriotism is not wrong, using it as an unintentional or deliberate motive for canvassing and COI are surely wrong. I request you to search your soul and ask yourself these questions.

E. Multiple red flags by someone experienced enough to cover it?' All this put together, repeated multiple India-related COI troubles with multiple editors, then archiving/hiding tracks by an experienced pakistani editor who has been a wikipedia member for 8 years, experiencd enough to know the guidelines and the system, tell me what conclusions to draw from this. I might be all wrong here. But all these raise surely the red flags, which you need to address constructively and "transparently" without being seen to hide/archive/game.

E. What next? My humble request to you:

E1. Refrain from editing all India related topics. Reason: Repeated COI warnings to you by many.

E2. Undo all your objectionable COI edits and reverts Please go back, and undo all the objectionable COI edits and edit-warring you have done during the last few weeks, specially to IPs. Reason: Remedial action followed by improved behavior helps in avoiding the get permanent ban.

E3. Stop selectively archiving warnings. Be transparent Reason: Earn the trust and respect of even your rivals by being fair, unbiased and transparent.

E4. No gaming the system. For example, trying to hide tracks and then never learning and keep repeating same COI against multiple editors working on India-related topics. If you did not game, or did not mean to, my apologies as I do not want you to feel hurt. I want to help you with my effort to write this long explanation, for you to constructively address these ongoing issues about your alamring behavior flagged by the multiple editors. Reason: Stay safe, lets make your great editors on wikipedia "again" (by fixing the issues flagged against by multiple editors).

E5. I will redo my edits you COI-obliterated I am going to put back all my edits you have deleted (circumvented 3-edit rule by making 3 successive edits to "specifically targeted" removal of "my India related edits" while leaving everything else untouched). I will respectfully accept the suggestions, reverts, re-edits and deletion of my work from other UNBAISED no-COI Pakistani and all other editors. Please strictly stay away from it from now on. If some other editor removed my edits, I would recheck all my work and put back improved work in constructive manner. Since your disruptive pattern is non-collaborative COI, I see no need to spend that effort. I will still be open to my work being deleted by others who are no-COI. Reason: COI and deliberate vandalism.

E6. Negativity is no good, either from me or you: I will be sadly forced to escalate this if you do not immediately fix your behavioral pattern I hate issuing warning and wars. An eye for eye, makes the whole world blind. So far, I have never left any warning for any editor, never reported or complained against any editor. You are the first ever editor for whom I have to leave such long message with this assertive. I am still respectful to you. Still trying to give more goodfaith to you. Still open to explanation from you. Provided you stop antagonising masses of editors. I still apologize, if you feel hurt, assuming there is some good reason for all your unacceptable mass antaganozing actions. I keep an open mind to correct myself through this experience. Please contribute to wikipedia from the pure heart. We can not game it bro. This is no place to wage the bitter wars. Even good content does not survive here due to the vandalism. Imagine it is much harder to make COI edits survive. We can not make our nations great in the real world out there, by using the COI at online virtual world of wikipedia here. It is useless to insert COI. It does not work in the long term. Please urgently take the remedial actions as above, by demonstrating the clear 180-degree change in the behavior, otherwise I might have to escalate it to more experienced admins to do a permanent surgical preventative action to prevent the long ongoing wrong behavioral pattern. Any explanation you provide, I hope you would please not move the goalposts by giving the "new reasons". I do not mean that you intend to do that. For example, if your reply can not justify your earlier actions and earlier "documented reasons for those actions" (as recorded in the edit history by you on what you did to my edits, and your talk page warnings/discussions with other editors selectively archived by you), it would be akin to argumentatively gaming the system by inventing the "new reasons". Just a humble friendly reminder.

E6. Final friendly words "O Bulle-ya, mandir todo, masjid todo, agar galti se kisi passionate editor ka pyar bhara patriotic dil tod diya maine, I am sorry veer ji. Now, please do the right thing. Fix the mess, by fixing yourself." Do yourself a favor, please make a big change in your behavior. Please stay out of the troubles. Be good to others not in just paying the lip service, but by demonstrating it in your actions to the extent that you earn the respect from your rival nations and opposite COI-editors. Please stay away from the India topics and all other your COI topics. Do not get permanently banned. Your choice, your actions, your consequences. I did my part by making big effort to write this long but specific-actionable clear explanation, because I believe there must be lot of good in you that can be harnessed if you change yourself. That is why I inserted no warning tag with this message. Now, all up to you. Be good please. Good luck. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear IP: Any ounce of good faith you wanted to claim seems to have been lost with frivolous accusations like these, and the hollow threats you've left on Kautilya3's talk, unsurprisingly. This is clearly not the behaviour of someone who's here to build an encyclopedia. Please don't mask the issues surrounding your edits under the cloak of nationality. You are aware of what the issues are. You restored the same material that was removed months ago from that very article, for the very same reasons satisfying Wikipedia's basic requirements: WP:V, WP:RS (please read through these, and WP:NOTRS if you want to continue editing). Several of your sources, and even ones currently in the article, fail the reliability criteria, which is an issue when adding extraordinary claims. We can't add content without verification; self-published blogs, websites, forums, speculative commentary and opinion pieces are not acceptable. If you can provide reliable sources like authentic news reports, books, peer reviewed journal articles, official statements etc., then it will stay - but you haven't.

Secondly, another critical issue as previously: the sources do not support what is being claimed in the article about overseas bases or personnel, and are deliberately synthesized or misrepresented. Transferring helicopters, radars, helping build satellites, or docking at ports isn't what a "base" is, and this has been explained. Also, military cooperation is not the same thing as military deployment. If you are going to persist with adding original research, synthesis, and sub-par references to articles, I'm afraid we have a much bigger problem to deal with here. Finally, I will leave you with the message that Iryna Harpy had left you on the article talk months back. For your own good, I hope you will stop ignoring others' advice and raise your editing standards soon in accordance with Wikipedia's:

Please take some time to read this talk page thoroughly, and read WP:NOR carefully. The 'definition' issue has been discussed ad nauseam. While it was agreed that an absolute definition is difficult, consensus is that their existence is backed up by reliable sources stating that they are definitively known bases. Per WP:TITLE, this is a "List of countries with overseas military bases", not "List of countries with possible overseas military bases (dependent on how a 'base' is defined), and potential surreptitious facilities which may or may not fit the definition of a military base." Finally, read WP:NPA, and refrain from WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics to reintroduce questionable content, as well as your communications with other editors

Also, my talk page is archived by a bot, not me. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

POV by Indians on Mirpur article

Hi user Mard recently Indian editors have been adding a pov heading section on to the demographics section they then refused to add the same to the Jammu article citing reasons like "subheading not needed" obviously they want to reduce the users chances of reading the massacre article but want it to stand out on the Mirpur page and they have also censored the Jammu massacre link. Please help and remove it from Mirpur page as headings are not needed. 82.132.235.134 (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

• With your great experience and good record, why don't you apply as administrator of wiki?  M A A Z   T A L K  12:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Point 5353 issues

Hello Mar4d (talk · contribs),

Hope all is well. I would request you to drop by Point 5353, where my edits were reverted without any logical reason. I've responded in the talk page why my edits should be allowed, yet as usual, you know what happens. Your experience in dealing with this conundrum would be appreciated. Thanks. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan Army article 1965 section contains Indian claims but the Indian army page contains only Indian claims

Hi user Mard just noticed the 1965 subsection of the Pakistan army page has Indian claims of 471 tanks while the Indian army page has ZERO pakistani claims of 500 tanks nor does it contain neutral sources which state Pakistan lost 200 or 300 tanks. Please I would like someone to tell this to user Adamberger80 who seems to think the Indian Army page should only contain Indian sources but the Pakistani army page should cater for Indian claims also this double standard should not be allowed. Hranday8 (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

DRN notice

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement".The discussion is about the topic Kashmir conflict. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Early years of Pakistan and its minorities

I edited and expanded a Pakistani pioneer film producer J.C. Anand's article today. I would like you to take a look at it, when you get a minute. His is a "success story" of a local Punjabi Hindu whose family decided to stay back in Pakistan after 1947. Another pioneer Pakistani film producer Agha G. A. Gul was his colleague and a personal friend. J. C. Anand, as a producer, made many highly successful films in Pakistan including Sassi (1954), Punjabi film Heer (1955 film) and Noor-e-Islam (1957). My thought in asking you is that you might be able to pick up a point or two to make your case for your Discussion Forums. My Salaams and Best Wishes. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ngrewal1 for your valuable contributions. I will surely pitch in if I can add value to the article. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit
	You deserve this for your hand work improving articles related to Pakistan, and defending NPOV on them. I sincerely hope you continue your excellent work. Saqib (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Saqib for your kind message. Best regards, Mar4d (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	Pakistani Barnstar of National Merit
	Congrax. :)  M A A Z   T A L K  07:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ma'az. Mar4d (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Gwadar port cons

Hi Mar4d, I hope all is well. I have found what I believe to be publications arguing against the Gwadar port expansion. Seeing that there isn't much published in the article or on the Internet, I wanted to know if it's okay with you if I add some by the grounds of NPOV.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if they meet WP:RS. Though you might want to check if they are relevant to Gwadar or the CPEC article instead. Mar4d (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Will do and for sure they will meet WP:RS or not go there at all. I'm very careful and particular about NPOV and RS. Just wanted to give you the heads up to avoid any misconceptions about my intentions.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

ARE

There is a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that concerns you. —MBL ^talk 03:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d dont be fearful of mean wolfs team. they are creating mess every where https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-stop-“vandalism”-and-“edit-war”-on-religious-articles-in-Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.74.77 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Arif Nizami, Azhar Abbas (journalist)

Arif Nizami, Azhar Abbas (journalist) are up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Abbas (journalist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Nizami. Can you please help in improving these articles and defect deletion attempt.--Spasage (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Economy of Faisalabad

Hello Mar4d,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Economy of Faisalabad for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Hagennos^Talk 00:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Hey can u pls label the references #13 and 35, on this page [1]. Like the name of ref, author and title and all idk how to do! TIA (45.116.232.11 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC))

Email

Hello, Mar4d. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

RSS involvement in Baloch terrorism

Hi I came across this source which states RSS is supporting separatists in Baluchistan. Could you kindly add this section to the Balochistan insurgency section under the Indian involvement? Thanks in advance. 82.132.231.17 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Source: https://www.news18.com/news/ivideos/indias-balochistan-freedom-movement-rss-affiliate-galvanises-baloch-youth-in-uttar-pradesh-1701871.html

Sports in Jammu and Kashmir

Hi. I am asking people related to the Wiki Project: Jammu and Kashmir or related to Kashmir in anyway for help related to improving the Wikipedia page Sports in Jammu and Kashmir. The aim is to make it a good article, and also rated as a Good Quality article ( GA) or higher ( FA). Images are also needed as well. LOOKING FORWARD TO A GREAT COLLABORATIVE EFFORT!!! Happy Editing. :) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Cricket and Ghulam Mustafa Khan

Ghulam Mustafa Khan died at age 93 in 2005 at Hyderabad, Sindh. Just finished editing his article and thought of asking you to take a peek at it since you are a cricket fan. His career was mainly as a scholar and linguist with Sufi tendencies. To my surprise, he did meticulous work to preserve the history of cricket in Pakistan starting in the 1950s. Truly an amazing Pakistani with such varied interests!!! Developed a lot of respect for the 'departed soul' as I was editing his article. May ALLAH bless him. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ngrewal1: Thank you for your contributions, the article is in a much better shape since your expansion. Please keep up the good work. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

1RR violation

This is a violation of the 1RR restrictions imposed on that article. Here's your chance to self revert. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 15:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Will you explain how this is a revert; it involved an addition of text, not removal/modification of the disputed text. Mar4d (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a revert since you've restored the 44 figure once again, go read the policy yourself but don't expect me to spoonfeed it to you. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 15:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.

You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard after six months of positive contributions to Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: This is disappointing and unfortunate at the same time. That ARE makes for a long and confusing reading, and certainly is hard to follow. As it stands, I've been busy IRL - my lack of participation evident enough for the lack of defense. However, I do have quite a bit to say and will reserve it for later, if time constraints permit me. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Afia

I am going to work to take this to Featured or Good level status. I was wondering if "background" section is appropriate, or if it should be removed, as the information is covered elsewhere in the text. 2Joules (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@2Joules: The background section seems to have more to do with the case, as opposed to Biography which is more around her personal life. I would leave it as it is, but if there is anything to be merged/moved between these two sections, that can be done. As far as the WP:LEAD is concerned, I would advise maintaining a sequence in the order of the various views concerning her. This is a controversial topic, so it should be tread and fine-turned with WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Yes, I have tried to present a chronological, yet neutral version in the lede. 2Joules (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Let's discuss on the articles talk page. 2Joules (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarification and Amendment

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan regarding the ARE decision that affected you. — MapSGV (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

review

Could you please check article Jammu and Kashmir, in which there is mention India control 60%, Pakistan 30% and china 10%. These figures are without any reliable reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.43.5.132 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Mosharraf Zaidi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mosharraf Zaidi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosharraf Zaidi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:India–Pakistan relations portal

A tag has been placed on Category:India–Pakistan relations portal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Fayenatic London 13:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request closed

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary

This is quite unnecessary. Sdmarathe participated in the AE request filed by Josephus of Jerusalem in May, and thus can be sanctioned without further notice (as, indeed, can you). Vanamonde (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sorry I seem to be missing something. Which edit are you referring to? Mar4d (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit, which I linked, was unnecessary. Sdmarathe does not require a warning, because he participated here, and indeed commented at the ongoing AE discussion before your warning. Vanamonde (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The talk page notice? I see. I left one just to ensure they are aware and can be logged into the system, as is the protocol for all involved editors. Mar4d (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Reported on AE

Hello, please check WP:AE#Mar4d. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Hi Mar4d, can you take a look at Ahmadiyya. I see a large number of unexplained edits by a newish editor. I can't figure out if they are right or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3. It appears the edits have already been reverted by another user, so I am not sure if any action would be required. Most of it just appears to be paraphrasing. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pakistan Mazdoor Kissan Party

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pakistan Mazdoor Kissan Party requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. » Shadowowl | talk 12:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Pakistani wine has been nominated for discussion

Category:Pakistani wine, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You've done good job...

...of turning the previous shambles into an actual Wikipedia article. --Saqib (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: Glad to be of help. There is actually more coverage of this aspect of Khan's life than meets the eye, and it certainly seems to evoke more curiosity than any other Pakistani political figure. As far as I know, only Jinnah's pet dogs have evoked as much interest before. Mar4d (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! --Saqib (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)