User talk:Mar4d/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

August 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for your participation at this ANI thread. This editor is heavily involved in the topic area that you are banned from, and your participation there is clearly related to that topic area., you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

@BU Rob13: Seriously? I disagree with this block, and find it harsh. Will you please clarify where the said violation occurred. I am certain I have not breached the restrictions, or else I wouldn't have left my thoughts in the first place; that, I am sure of. My comments have pertained only to the way this case was being handled in the context of NadirAli. Please do let me know where I have crossed the topic ban territory, because I can convincingly assure you it is not intentional. I'm ready and more than happy to address your concerns. Mar4d (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli is an editor who was found to be socking in the area you were topic banned from and has also been topic banned from that area. I don't think it was a random occurrence that four of the editors who were topic banned along with NadirAli chose to participate in that discussion. The participation was because of his involvement in that topic area. This is on both sides, to be clear, not just from you. I do not believe any administrator would look at your participation in that discussion and see it as disengaging in from your protracted and ongoing personal dispute in the India-Pakistan topic area. You are welcome to appeal my block at WP:AE or WP:AN, and I'm happy to copy an appeal to either location if you would like. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks, but my comments were limited to NadirAli's contributions to the Pakistan topic area (which I primarily edit), and for context, the user conducts leading up to this unfortunate AN thread. I have not alluded any references to the India-Pakistan topic area, which is a whole different can of worms. I have quietly gone about with my business by abiding to the editing restrictions, and have not strayed off into that territory since the restrictions were set in place. I have been involved with NadirAli in WikiProject Pakistan for many years, and therefore felt it necessary to leave my views primarily (and only) in that context. I did not have an inkling that doing so would venture into the topic ban limitations, because that would also imply that anything Pakistan-related = India-Pakistan related (which is misleading; apples and oranges). I can assure you my participation did not have the farthest intentions of venturing into the TBAN conflict area, but was rather focused on the site ban proposal against NadirAli. Mar4d (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mar4d, you have also brought up other editors blocked for alleged socking and badgered all the editors who ever took part in that block discussion. Multiple times, in fact. Your conduct was WP:BATTLEGROUND. Precisely of the kind for which you are facing a sanction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: One more instance of grave-dancing over editors involved in this dispute and I will topic ban you from the area. You are not currently topic banned, but the dispute needs to stop from your end too. You are very much a part of it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I'm obviously not happy with the way this ban proposal was handled. And therefore made my views clear regarding how some of the participants were only just recently supporting the unblock of another blocked user. This had nothing to do with the topic ban area, but was rather to reinforce the apparent contradiction/flaw vis-a-vis the NadirAli ban. Anyway, I am happy to bury it and cooperate in any appropriate manner. If that requires completely ceasing involvement in that discussion, then so be it. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mar4d (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@BU Rob13: Per my clarification above. This is one of those scenarios which you think are either black or white, but everything turns out grey. The TBAN breach is regretted, and obviously I could have displayed better judgement. I'll exercise caution going forward, and cease my involvement in the Site ban discussion. I would like to continue my edits on Pakistan-related topics as I was doing prior to the block. Best regards, Mar4d (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

That response gives me more confidence you understand what can't happen again, so you've been unblocked (or rather, will be in a minute). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: Please kindly review, you have my word. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally am unwilling to unblock based on the above. You first argued this wasn't a topic ban violation, and I still don't think you quite understand that this personal dispute needs to be over yesterday. It's not just the site ban discussion that needs to be avoided; it's everything related to the dispute the group of editors who were mass topic banned have been involved in. If you fill out the template for AE, I'm happy to copy that over. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13: I have already acknowledged this, and agree to it. Since the restrictions were set, I haven't violated my TBAN and have stringently abided to it for several weeks. You are welcome to investigate. I honestly thought (and had the perception) that the TBAN would be limited to Pakistan/India conflict articles, or generally making reference to those particular areas of conflict, and was therefore required to stray clear off that side. I have tried my level best to do so, and would never have risked getting involved here if I knew this was off-limits, because this has more to do with my interactions with NadirAli across the WikiProject Pakistan space, where we have a history of collaboration. Having been personally involved, and collaborated with NadirAli for a long time across Pakistani articles, where I basically got to know him in the first place, I thought I should be qualified to give my two cents on something that not only affects his editing, but the Pakistan WikiProject also. As an editor of 12 years, he's one of the few members who brought some experience, perspective and knowledge to the Pakistan topic area. If you look at that WP:AN, I was actually one of the first to !vote there, before things went south. I acknowledge it was a thin ice to skate on as soon as the the dispute opened up and became more about the conflict, and should have demonstrated sensitivity. Like I said, I wouldn't have risked it if I knew what it would get me into, or compromise my (so-far) clean TBAN record. It was an honest misunderstanding of the TBAN, which I now appreciate is not only concerned with articles or making references to subjects covered under the conflict area, but also wholesome discussions/disputes where the said group of banned editors is involved inevitably, and extending into that interaction space. Going forward, I can offer to stray clear from that side and make sure it's not repeated as I assured above. I'm not sure what else I can provide (I'm already unable to edit :p ) or where this AE template is – that I need to fill, but feel free to use this response as the appeal. Thanks! Mar4d (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13: Appreciated, thanks. Mar4d (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Imran Khan

Did you post this request in the right section? The article is already semi-protected. Do you want the protection level raised or removed? Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Sorry, I was aiming for higher protection due to the high volume of edits. But if it is already semi-protected, then I don't think we need to go any higher. Mar4d (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, The article was indefinitely semi'ed in Sep 2014, and when I last checked the regulars seem to have matters under control despite the rapid pace of recent edits. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Teefa in Trouble

Hi! Hope you will be fine. Since my last edit on the mentioned page, there have been many other edits. At a glance, I saw that someone inserted unsourced amount figures in the infobox. Also, the addition of plot have overlinks of film cast. The other things, a new reference with name Bilal Agha has been linked, and Meesha Shafi's paragraph has been added. Need some help, please guide what to do. Thanks! M. Billoo 14:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: Sorry, I just saw the edit history, and you must have been notified of this. But what does these mean:

• became the fifth Pakistani film to be released during a non-holiday period
• breaking the record of the previous highest-grossing film Jawani Phir Nahi Ani

Instead / though, I consider this as correct:

• surpassing the challenge of releasing during a non-holiday and non-peak season

Does plot section really need reference? Also, Yalghaar was the most expensive Pakistani film, maybe… I think Ali Zafar-Meesha Shafi case has enough content to be added on a new page instead of writing same thing on each related page, what do you think? Please help, Thanks! M. Billoo 15:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

How could it be a crime film on the basis of only one reference by Bilal Agha? M. Billoo 15:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi M.Billoo2000. I suggest you take these notes to the talk page. A few comments; I believe what the first quote says is that it was released during a non-holiday period, which could refer to a weekend or perhaps holidays could also refer to Eid. I don't see any reason to delete references from the plot or elsewhere, as that will make the content unsourced and difficult to verify. Also, no comment on the Ali Zafar-Meesha Shafi case (which is still in courts, and are allegations as of now), but I believe it deserves a sentence on the article given the initial controversy which surrounded the film's release. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You said, "I don't see any reason to delete references from the plot or elsewhere, as that will make the content unsourced and difficult to verify."

• Then, are budget or box office figures sourced? The budget is in $ per source, and gross is in PKR, so the conversions here in the page are unsourced.
• Similarly, the category of crime films is poorly sourced, based on only one reference.
• On first day at the local box office, the film managed to become the top Pakistani film, while all-time fifth film in non-holiday releases including international films.

The international films play a great part at Pakistani box office. Sultan (2016) is the biggest opener, and Sanju (2018) has now became the biggest film. You can check out BOD. For plot, I disagree on some sentences that you supported from Bilal Agha's reference. As I have seen the edit history, I now think you have made these edits. So, I consider to talk to you directly. Please try to understand and help, thanks! M. Billoo 00:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

M.Billoo2000: Unfortunately I don't have enough time at the moment, but if you think there is an issue with the category, feel free to remove it. If you have better sources for the plot or feel a source has been missed out, feel free to add it. As far as the box office is concerned, I think the sentence is very clear in referring to Pakistani films, not international films. You can suggest rewording on the talk page. Also, the gross figures should be easy to convert per Template:PKRConvert although that template may be outdated, so I would still recommend doing a sanity check and making sure that the figures are accurate per current exchange rates/source estimates. The box office figures should be easy to verify from official/reliable links. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Hope you will be fine. Can you please check the page once again. Some feminist has added a whole "hate" section there and I don't know what to do. And again, box office figures have been updated without source. Thanks! M. Billoo 00:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete Imran Khan's Mother's Information?

Did you watch the video used as citation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJZ41BTW9PU

0:34 seconds.

Is there bigger proof than that?

When her own son is talking about her mother's ethnicity?

Or you think Imran Khan doesn't know what "Muhajir" means?

You know more about his mother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profthomascrown88 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"Political video"? He's talking about his mother's ethnicity . . .

Can you share some of your "countless reliable sources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profthomascrown88 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Or do you have your own agenda here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profthomascrown88 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Also that whole "Burki' thing is based on no evidence. What is the proof? Where are the references or citations? On Wikipedia, you are required to show reliable sources. You think he's lying about his mother's ethnicity for "political gain"?

Your personal opinions don't matter here. Proven facts do.

Are you going to undo your change or do I have to pass this matter to the higher admins and they can decide for themselves?

Profthomascrown88: As explained, there has been countless research into Khan's family background. You are welcome to check this article. According to all sources, Khan is an ethnic Pashtun; his father and mother belong to the clans of Niazi and Burki respectively, both of which are Pashtun tribes. At Wikipedia, we stick with the position of majority sources. I have seen the video you are referring to and let me clarify, the term Muhajir has two definitions: 1) The predominately Urdu-speaking migrants from India who migrated to Pakistan; 2) The general meaning of the word which means "migrant". Khan is alluding to the fact that his mother migrated from the Punjab part of India. Please note that in the Pakistani context, the term 'Muhajir' overwhelmingly has an ethnic connotation and is associated with the first definition, which the article Muhajir people is on. Also note that Punjabis who migrated from East to West Punjab in 1947 are not counted in this ethnic definition. His mother's family were indeed migrants from Punjab, and this is mentioned in several places at Family of Imran Khan as well as his own article. However, to claim that his maternal family were ethnic Muhajirs is a completely erroneous and misleading claim; his maternal ancestors were based in East Punjab and were Pashtuns. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Also that whole "Burki' thing is based on no evidence - this is a ridiculous claim. Please note if you are going to attempt to battle the preponderance of reliable sources and try to promote your original research, you are going to have a tough time here! Mar4d (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Bushra Imran

Hi Mar4d, you need to read this latest piece. --Saqib (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your restoration: per this RfC, the source has a history of fabricating interviews, and therefore is not reliable in that case. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: DM might be unreliable in most cases as a reliable source, however here, the source is solely relying on an exclusive interview with Imran Khan. Like I mentioned, the quotes attributed to Khan can be mentioned, given they are coming from him, and it has been mentioned in other sources like Dawn. I'm seeing no indication that the interview was fabricated. If you have such contentions, please feel free to provide evidence of why you think so. Until then, this is simply an assumption. Mar4d (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If some of the details are supported by other sources, then use those sources; if not, then given that this is a BLP it's simply not appropriate to include details with only that source given the broad consensus that it is not reliable. See WP:BLPREMOVE. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

BUMP! --Saqib (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: We cannot start changing our articles just because of that letter by someone unknown. We will rely on reliable sources. Does reliable sources call Pakistani prime minister's wife, first lady or not? It's also not given that the President's wife is called first lady, for example the article on Emmanuel Macron's wife Brigitte Macron does not state her as first lady. So far, I have only seen first lady title for wives of US presidents, that is because it is a tradition in United States and is proven by reliable sources. So, coming back to my point if sources state that the title for the wife of Pakistani prime minister is first lady then we will use that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: I agree with that assessment. Can I also point out that the First Lady in Pakistan is generally an unofficial title, unlike countries like the United States where it is more formal. As per my review of Pakistani sources, the term 'First Lady' has been used to refer to the spouses of both the Prime Minister and President. Hence the reason all the lists are presented in that article. Mar4d (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: It's basically like jis ki laathi uski bhains, whoever is more powerful at a time, his wife was the first lady so for example in case of dictatorships, the dictator's wife was the first lady, all dictators assumed the role of president, that made the president's wife, the first lady. During democratic setups, prime minister's wife was the first lady! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Indo pakistan war 1965

Hi i just wanted to bring this to your attention that as you are a senior member of Pakistani wikipedians, you need to do something to bring the article on indo pakistan war of 1965 back to neautrality. All the editors that discussed the issue on page are indian nationalists and they have provided only those references that claim indian victory and thus have changed inconclusive to indian victory in the result area. I would appreciate if you could open the talk page and have the discussion re opened so that people could not be misled by indian propaganda. 2605:6001:E19B:B400:A548:2AB8:4026:7FD2 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d cannot comment on India/Pakistan related topics so please don't post requests asking them to here. --regentspark (comment) 18:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to 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, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		It will be an understatement to say that you are doing a great job on First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministership, please keep up the good work. You are a one hard working Wikipedian! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SheriffIsInTown, appreciated :) Couldn't have been possible without your structuring and expansions also. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well deserved. --Saqib (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Saqib! Mar4d (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Regional Power

Upon receipt of e-mail via User:Usman47 regarding joining of talks at Talk:Regional power. Due to my other preoccupations I could not surf the issue in detail (i.e. citations). So far I understand one editor/user is attempting to remove the Pakistan from the list of Regional power. Am I right in understanding. Nannadeem (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: I'm not aware of that, but as far as the question of the RfC is concerned, the discussion and the opening statement should be perused for users from the topic area who have an opinion on it. Please also note this is WP:NOTAVOTE. In previous discussions on the talk page, I had supplied some additional references and they are used in the article presently. I will try and follow-up on those sources if I have time. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

..

Human3015 ^TALK  21:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

I have started discussion on AE to discuss if your edits violate topic ban. Orientls (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass restorations of sock edits

Mar4d, User:Son of Kolachi is now blocked as a sock of a banned user. I was WP:SOCKSTRIKEing his edits per WP:BMB, and I found that you are engaged in mass restore of edits by this sock, regardless of how problematic they are. You have been doing wholesale reverts and restoring reverted edits of a blocked sock by misrepresenting WP:BANREVERT. Ban revert is not for going after contribution of other editors and restoring a sock belonging to paid editing farm.

Also you can't decline G5.[1], let an admin decide that.

Ponyo had already warned you of this and further Kautilya3 also reminded you about this behavior.

Consider self-reverting your edits now since you neither have your own reason, nor your reverts are case by case. I am posting here as I wanted to notify you and hear from you first otherwise this can be better handled at ANI as I can see there were several warnings already for reckless proxying for socks and things have not improved. DBigXrayᗙ 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello DBigXray. No comments as far as the block is concerned, but I'd like to echo Saqib, who first reinstated SoK's changes per his comment here. WP:BANREVERT says edits shouldn't be reverted only because they're from a now-blocked editor, because these changes might've been helpful in which case reverting them wholesale might restore a deficient version of the article. I don't want that to happen. I'm all for building the encyclopaedia, not mere optics. The editor is already blocked, so it leaves little else to do, and I think users who choose to mass-revert should also independently review if those reverts will benefit the encylopaedia. Also, by restoring, the responsibility for the content transfers to the restoring user. Having reviewed the reverted edits, I found that they were not harmful to the articles as most of these changes were sourced to references. See for example this change, this content is related to the final proceedings of the case and removing it means restoring an article to a non-updated version, which in any case isn't good. At the same time, I've no prejudice against removing any unsourced additions but I didn't see any at least in the ones restored.

Secondly, you pointed out the G5 tag here, on which I'll just make a small mention that since it was I who originally moved this article (on a scheduled election) onto mainspace and I'm not the only one who edited it, this speedy should be reviewed on a case-basis as explained in BANREVERT again. Per my summary, it would be a futile exercise deleting the page only to have it recreated again, which isn't helpful in any case.

Since I'm in no mood for controversy and drama (and frankly don't have the time for it), I'll revert the restorations DBigXray, if that makes you feel happy and accomplished. However, I'm at the same time open to hearing from uninvolved admins on whether these edits were inappropriate. As far as only the changes that added sourced content to articles are concerned, I don't think reverting them on the basis explained above is constructive. That's my opinion, and I'll leave it out there for others to leave their two cents on. Mar4d (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: @RegentsPark: May we have your two cents, good sirs, on this topic of mass reverting of edits. Or any other admin who's available. With minimal controversy, desirably. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I haven't had my coffee yet so I'll be brief. Both the banning and blocking policies permit removal of edits made in violation of a ban. Neither policy requires removal, and they advise that any user may restore a banreverted edit if they believe the edit is an improvement. If either of you have problems with specific edits you should discuss them on the relevant talk pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Ivanvector. Following up on this, I believe there was a case for certain edits where the version of the article restored to was not better than how it was prior to the revert [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] I hope the objecting party(ies) would be open to discussing those reverts. Mar4d (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What Ivanvector said. I would suggest though that, when restoring a reverted sock edit, leave a note on the talk page explaining why it is being restored (or an edit summary if the restored edit was not content related). The onus should be on the restorer, not the reverter because we should actively discourage socks. --regentspark (comment) 12:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Can't disagree with this suggestion. That's actually a pretty reasonable and fair way of dealing with this. Mar4d (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

+1 what regentspark said, that's good advice. You get 1000 (or some ridiculous number) characters of edit summary now, might as well make use of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2)Glad that you accepted and self reverted. Note that Reverting a banned sock, even though "he was harassing me on several pages" does not really make me happy or sad. Paid editings socks have to be reverted per policy.
• I can see you are trying to justify your Mass reverts citing "Good edits by Sock" I suggest you read the Banning policy WP:BMB once again because what you are trying to claim is directly against what the policy says. exceptions are only given for edits that clear vandalism and BLP violation. Trying to use an excuse of "Good edits" is what the WP:BMB policy calls out as WP:Gaming the system something that you should clearly avoid.
• These pages you are reverting were never edited by you and it took you only a matter of minutes to revert over 30 edits. Apparently it doesn't shows that you had "independent reasons" to restore edits required by WP:BANREVERT. It is not within ban revert when you are mass restoring edits only because a particular editor had made those edits. That should be never the reason for restoring sock edits. Like Ponyo had told you before that you should restore only "as if you made the edits yourself".[11]
• Since this sock belongs to a paid editing sock farm it is pretty obvious that he was paid to make those edits. In these circumstances you can simply stay out without bothering any further.
• Lastly, If you really do want some "admin feedback" then you would do well to post on notice boards such as WP:AN and WP:HELPDESK that will get us feedback of "uninvolved admins". DBigXrayᗙ 12:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing socks do not have to be reverted: the same rules apply as with any other banned editor. And not going to the drama boards is a perfectly reasonable approach. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• I believe I have said all I had to say on paid editing socks, since Mar4d has self reverted the matter ends here.
• I find this rather unusual that Mar4d likes to frequently ping these above 2 admins, not sure why. May be, he can explain his personal preference. I cant speak for Mar4d but speaking of me, if indeed admin comments are needed, I prefer taking the issue to "relevant noticeboards" for developing consensus which is not possible here on this talk page. regards--DBigXrayᗙ 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, I'll be using the article talk page(s) now to both discuss and review any changes which I find meaningful content-wise. Already, another editor, Ravensfire, has restored some of these [12] [13] [14]. So if you have objections regarding content, I think your best bet would be to follow the suggestions above. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

In case you missed my lines above, I had written ""it is pretty obvious that he was paid to make those edits. In these circumstances you can simply stay out without bothering any further." What Ravensfire did was restore few edits related to cricket probably on his watchlist for "independent reasons". You were clearly on a revert spree and don't have such reasons. Anyway, I have shared my reasons, and the relevant policy and echoed what Ponyo said [15] I dont plan to escalate this further as of now but I will if I have to. My best suggestion would be that you should allow Mfarazbaig request an unblock and restore his edits himself DBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, I'm not the one who's doing paid editing, and neither is it of concern here or involving me. I'm only talking about normal, sourced changes on articles like this. Or this. Or perhaps this. If you think these are paid edits, you should also point out why, or which edits, so it's less confusing. And even if hypothetically true, what Ivanvector said above basically^, but we're not there. If you want an idea of what I mean by sourced content, this contested deletion of speedy for instance. That's the best way to go about it for you. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d, I have not accused you of paid editing. Note that, I clearly saw and understood your point regarding "Constructive edits" from your edit summaries itself. I am not here to argue a "constructive edit". You see, "encouraging a disruptive + harassing + paid sock, who is clearly WP:Gaming here" is the matter of "bigger concern" that has been pointed clearly according to our "Policy WP:BMB". Since these edits you pointed are not "vandalism revert" or "BLP violation revert", I would not really bother much about it. If you have problems with "Policy WP:BMB" and its position how it deals with "Constructive edits" and you don't like it, you are welcome to initiate an RFC to get it modified to allow the so called "constructive edits by socks". I am not sure that RfC will sail far though. But still, Good luck. I have already said all I have to and also explained steps to get it enforced regarding this socks harassment.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for clarifying. Like I said, my only concern here is sourced material and not anything other than that. WP:BMB is for blocked editors, and that's all well and good. But please note we have guidelines under WP:BANREVERT and WP:PROXYING which explain how to deal with issues of this type too. I generally think, the way Wikipedia works, it's not worth going two steps back only to gain one extra step. In other words, if a mass revert is going to cause an article to be restored to an inferior version, I don't think it's worth the trouble. Really. WP:IAR is a policy that doesn't exist for no reason. In a nutshell, there was a series of mass reverts; I saw that most of the changes in question involved texts of sourced material, whose wholesale reversion wasn't the best thing to happen for the articles or subjects concerned. And therefore, I'm opening up my concerns regarding the same. The rest is pretty much above. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Pakistan Association Dubai.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Pakistan Association Dubai.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Needed Help

Hi Mar4d ! If you have time, Can you help me in publishing the full story of Prince Saiful Malook and Badri Jamala? I shall be very thankful to you. PakEditor (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hey Mar4d. I found an interesting Pakistani-origin person who I think should have a Wikipedia page. But I'm too lazy to create it. Since you're quite active on Wikipedia, I thought you might like too.

• Zulfiqar Bhutta - Professor at Dalla Lanna School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. Co-Director of Research Centre for Global Child Health at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. Founding Director of the Centre of Excellence Women and Child Health at the Agha Khan University, Karachi. Elected to the US National Academy of Medicine in 2018 - 1 & 2. Also Fellow of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, Royal College of Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

--2605:8D80:681:4397:3CA1:5CE9:F2FB:8097 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Some help needed to restore sanity ..

Hi,

I'm having significant difficulty in updating Pakistan's status on the page Nuclear Triad (please check history). I have provided sufficient citations and sources however some neighborhood gentlemen keep reverting changes (possibly due to their bias or confusion). I hope you can help restore some sanity or guide if I'm completely mistaken. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any comments or suggestions regarding this. Thanks ! AAG Baron (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pakistan Army sidebar

Template:Pakistan Army sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gotitbro (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mar4d. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Help

Mar4d Sir, sorry to disturb you but I needed your help in one case. See there is a user called Mountain157. The user is new and he has been involved in repeated POV push on Pakistan related wiki pages. He has been told by some experienced editors not to do this but he continues to push his POV on those pages. Some of the examples of his POV are: [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]]. He will also cite non-credible sources like in this case [[20]] and also some time he will cite sources which don't support anything which he writes [[21]]. So could you please take a look at his page and report him so that he don't keep making these changes? 5.21.223.43 (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. Since you posted on my talk, I was able to review some of the diffs you presented and agree that the majority of the users' edits appear to be poorly sourced and highly problematic. However, the matter appears to have been handled by other users who have noticed the disruption. I would suggest using the appropriate escalation forums such as WP:ANI if, in your opinion, the behaviour continues. Best regards, Mar4d (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d Sir, Thank you so much for your help. 5.36.162.166 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

A cup of coffee for you in appreciation of your contributions in Wikipedia articles related to Sindh and Pakistan. JogiAsad  Talk 00:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks JogiAsad. Mar4d (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, can you promote some of my articles to DYK or featured articles? JogiAsad  ^Talk 20:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The exact section is located here. Just adding this notice because the reporting user (Mountain157) didn't do so as required. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

vandalism and prejudice by indian vandals on Pakistan related pages

Hi, I am writing to ask if you can shed some light on this issue, i have been monitoring pages where Pakistan have been shown in positive light or have some comparison with India. Indian trolls get in to edit wars to push their narrative and later it is being accepted by some moderators here. I have been blocked lately due to reverting "regional powers" article to it's original form and the Indian narrative is forced. Is there any neutral administrators in Wikipedia or if they are aware of this problem and they are letting it slide through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaAce (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TDCP

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that TDCP, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Spyder212 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Ajman

Portal:Ajman, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ajman and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Ajman during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Coke Studio (Pakistan)

Portal:Coke Studio (Pakistan), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Coke Studio (Pakistan) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Coke Studio (Pakistan) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pakistani people of Korean descent

A tag has been placed on Category:Pakistani people of Korean descent 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. DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)