User talk:Mar4d/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto

My friend there's no need to get Consensus on a section that is an opinion and does not represent a neutral point of view. Read this:

• "Benazir Bhutto publicly announced her belief that her father was "sent to the gallows".
• "Many political analysts and scientists widely suspected that the riots and coup against Bhutto were orchestrated with help of the Central Intelligence Agency and the United States Government because the United States allegedly feared Bhutto's socialist policies which were seen as sympathetic to the Soviet Union and had built a bridge that allowed the Soviet Union to be involved in Pakistan".

And the opnion of "Ramsey Clark": "I [Ramsey Clark] do not believe in conspiracy theories in general, but the similarities in the staging of riots in Chile (where the CIA allegedly helped overthrow President Salvadore Allende) and in Pakistan are just too close, Bhutto was removed from power in Pakistan by force on 5 July, after the usual party on the 4th at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, with U.S. approval, if not more, by General Zia-ul-Haq". For more info: Explanation of the neutral point of view Thanks. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey there. First of all, at Wikipedia, we don't work on truth but rather on verifiability. If there are sources backing an opinion or viewpoint, we report it. This is also in accordance with representing all viewpoints that exist on the subject. Something doesn't have to be true or false to be reported, if there are sources showing a certain position, our job is to report them with neutrality of course. It is well known that there were many conspiracy theories over Bhutto's death, so writing about them on his article is certainly relevant and appropriate. Especially when his own daughter Benazir Bhutto commented that she believed her father was sent to the gallows by a "superpower", hence we have to incorporate her views too. We have many articles and sections on conspiracy theories, and not all of them necessarily have to be true. See Template:Conspiracy theories for example, there is a long list of them, and they include articles on deaths or assassinations of politicians. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My friends, its an allegation (Def: a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof) of "U.S being involved in the coup etc." you can't just blame the U.S in the article just because Benzair and Ramsery Clark accused them. Its irrelevant to add their opinions to respective articles. "do you have possible role of jews on September 11 attacks"?. There's plenty of "opinions"... Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter if it's an allegation. And it doesn't matter if they are true or not. If there are sources saying such allegations have been made, then we report them as allegations. Our job is not to decide whether the allegations being made are true or false. Our job is just to report them, with reliable sources. You need to read up Wikipedia's verifiability policies, and especially this: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Mar4d (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop editing Wikipedia articles with the average Pakistani mind that everything in their country is being orchestrated by the U.S or Jews. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The above comment by Saad can be treated as an abuse and harassment. What do you mean by "average Pakistani mind". You are causing continuous disruption here. Faizan 14:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Faizan please mind your business. If you wish to make a personal comment thn please do so at my talk page. Not in the middle of this. Average Pakistani mind meaning everyday pakis (I'm a paki myself) and I know this. Btw it wasn't a harassment but an advice (Sorry if you took as a personal attack M4rd). Faizan, You're welcomed to join this discussion btw. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV. We should not be giving undue weight to a fringe theory. If I may paraphrase Jimbo's famous e-mail of Sep 29, 2003 which is the key part of the NPOV policy: What do mainstream history texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent historians say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within mainstream historians on this point?

• If your viewpoint is held by the majority of historians, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent historians, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, all I am saying is that since it's an allegation, it should be mentioned, even if it is a minority viewpoint. Regarding WP:WEIGHT, you may be right, perhaps it is getting more due coverage than it deserves. Perhaps giving the theory a whole section on the article violates WP:WEIGHT, especially since it is just an allegation. To fix that, perhaps the section could be removed and the theory could be summarised in one or two sentences and added under the "Death sentence and appeal" section. However, it still needs to be mentioned one way or another, due to WP:V. Mar4d (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you M4rd...thanks for listening to the other side and trying to understand. Btw I'm going to make the changes...and revise it...and be sure to check it out here Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a couple of sentences (political analyst and Sindh Assembly members) that were "referenced" to an article in NYTimes (CIA Sent Bhutto to the Gallows-1979) but no article of such kind exist as I have searched here. If you do find it, please feel free to add them again. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure actually. This link contains the transcript of the article you may be referring to. You can use that. Sources don't have to be online per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Perhaps because it's an old article, that's why there's no online version of it (if that is indeed the case). Mar4d (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, sources do not have to be online but regarding transcript... if you look at the NYTimes history article search, it says -All Since 1851-. So the article doesn't exist and the site http://sixhour.com seems to be purely contributed to him (Defending him) and seem like a propaganda. Anyhow the article isn't there (History search). Saadkhan12345 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Butcher of Gujarat

A tag has been placed on Butcher of Gujarat, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is a slander

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Vatsan34 (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you for real? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a pretty valid redirect and has coverage in multiple sources. We already have a precedent with Butcher of La Cabana, Butcher of Tehran, Butcher of Prague, Butcher of Kurdistan, Butcher of Baghdad, Butcher of Bengal, and dozens of more. Clearly, this is one among many. Mar4d (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RNEUTRAL#3 in simple words. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Butcher of Gujarat

A tag has been placed on Butcher of Gujarat, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an "attack page", and appears to be primarily intended to disparage or threaten its subject. This includes biographies of living people that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Safiel (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Answering comments in the previous section, I would invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Now this redirect and the others like it MIGHT be able to stand. But for them to do so, they must be reliably sourced, in accordance with WP:BLP, at the redirect itself, not just at the target article. However, the redirect is NOT sourced, therefore it must fall as a violation of WP:BLP. Two reliable sources that the pejorative is commonly associated with the subject should be sufficient. And since they have been listed, I will review those other redirects. Safiel (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Clarifying, those redirects where the subject is still alive and WP:BLP still applies. Safiel (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Butcher of Gujarat listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Butcher of Gujarat. Since you had some involvement with the Butcher of Gujarat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories

• Please needed categories at Khalid Irfan, and if copy edit. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Mar4d (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Mass moves...

Can you go through his contributions when you get time.. he's been busy mass moving Pakistani universities to include city names indiscriminately. I can't ask an admin to nuke his contributions because some of those renames were actually pretty good like Air University (Pakistan Air Force) and the likes to Air University, Islamabad etc (he failed to do this specific one due to page history though and ended up getting blocked for blanking it again and again)... but what's the point of moving Khyber Medical University to Khyber Medical University, Peshawar (it's the only topic, not just the primary topic... see also Harvard University, no other exists and hence no need of city name). I tried to explained this to him on his talkpage, reverted some of the moves but the day he's already spent at it, I can't undo it all back :/ --lTopGunl (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I've been a bit busy in real life, so sorry about not getting back to you earlier. I'll have a look at this in a day or two. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, check whenever you get free. Should've dropped this at WT:PAK, but that place is kind of dead nowadays. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Only a handful of us running the project :p Mar4d (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just went through the user's contributions. It appears most of the mass moves have been corrected by Samee. The only good that seems to have come out of this exercise is a whole lot of redirects being created Mar4d (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol, and a few users, including me, going nuts tracking the page moves and mass editing. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions

Perhaps you could explain your edit summary on the articles that I had proposed for deletion and you removed the prod? MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Although it's not a requirement, but I've given edit summaries for each of the taggings, and the reason is as stated. Some of those PRODS were drive-by taggings, even when the articles were reasonably sourced, while one was too premature as the article seems to have been created quite recently and not given time to develop. Consider AfD if you wish. Mar4d (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

They have all been sent to AfD you are welcome to comment. Not amused by the drive-by tagging comment whatever that is it is not something I did perhaps you should consider an apology. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Since all the articles are in the same category and you prodded them in quick succession, it gave the impression of drive-by taggings, and that the tags were added without evaluating the articles or sources first. Regardless, no offence intended. Mar4d (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have had these articles watched for a while to see if they develop but on consideration that military training exercises are hardly encyclopedic or notable I decided it was time to propose deletion. We will just leave it to others to support or otherwise that view, regards. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Merged

Since the article, Rape in Jammu and Kashmir has been merged per the clear consensus here, you cannot revert the merge, and if you want to have any of its content, you can still view it from this diff.[1] Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pakistan Armed Forces deployments

Hello! Your submission of Pakistan Armed Forces deployments at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Pakistan Armed Forces deployments

The DYK project (nominate) 04:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

ISI in India

Hi Mar4d, Regarding this revert [2], please note that the other editor simultaneously opened a discussion on the talk page. It would be advisable to participate in the talk page discussion instead of starting an edit war. Best regards, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD voting

Hi Mar4d, in AfDs the nominator is asked to refrain from repeating (the delete) with a bulleted comment per WP:AFDFORMAT. I note that you've done so in all three of the AfDs for this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian century (3rd nomination), so now as nom, I ask you to strike thru your !vote, thanks. Widefox; talk 19:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Saraiki cuisine

Category:Saraiki cuisine, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. kashmiri ^TALK 16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Truck art in Pakistan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Truck art in Pakistan, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. wia (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has been nominated for merging with Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan (politician)

Don't you think you should have discussed the move to Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan (politician)? You are citing COMMONNAME but ignoring HONORIFIC. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, Rana is part of his official name. It's not a honorific, nor do I see where you get that perception from? Mar4d (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Rana is a title, I thought. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a title. It's actually a Rajput clan name, and many people who belong to the clan keep it as their surname or as part of their given name. Mar4d (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Erdogan

Pleease stop addin the category that he is of Georgian origin. This is a WP:BLP violation. I almost reported you at WP:AIV, but then decided that you might be reasonable enough to stop yourself. Please read WP:BLP carefully. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot find a policy based reason for your reverts. As the subject of the article has described himself as a Georgian and it is sourced and verified in that article (satsifying WP:BLP), there ought to be no reason for the removal of the category. If you have doubts over his Georgian ancestry, you can start a thread on the talk page and discuss the article content. However, please stop removing the category as it is based on what is said in the article. Mar4d (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article said in 2006 he is Georgian and in 2014 that he is not. This is documented in the article. There is no additional evidence that he is Georgian. Per WP:BLP, he should not be in the category. The topic at the talk page exists for a long time, you just did not bother to look there, did you?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article said in 2006 he is Georgian and in 2014 that he is not. That does not make any sense. Whether he said that in 2006 or 2014, why should that matter? This is documented in the article. - the part you are most likely referring to here ("They have said I am Georgian...they have said even uglier things - they have called me Armenian, but I am Turkish") is where he's referring to his citizenship or nationality, and obviously, he is a Turkish citizen, not a Georgian. He is of Georgian ancestry however and that is what the category is for. Mar4d (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Again: There is absolutely no proof, whatsoever, of his Georgian ancestry, except for one occasion when he himself said this. This has not been independently confirmed by any source. And we also know that he can say any junk, and, in particular, that on the other occasion he said he does not have Georgian ancestry. Well, I have reported you anyway, let us see what uninvolved users have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia does not have to prove anything, it's sufficient if reliable sources say so. And they say that he claimed being Georgian on several occasions. kashmiri ^TALK 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And on other occasions he claimed not to be Georgian, as confirmed by RS. Your conclusion is?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This has not been independently confirmed by any source. - Yes it has, by himself in fact, as you yourself are admitting above. And on other occasions he claimed not to be Georgian - could you please provide a source where he explicitly and exclusively confirms that he does not have Georgian ancestry? And we also know that he can say any junk, and, in particular, that on the other occasion he said he does not have Georgian ancestry. - if he has identified himself as Georgian, then this is what we categorise it as. You don't decide at a personal level what is "junk" or what is not, especially when the fact being debated over has been independently confirmed by the subject of the BLP himself. And again, where has he said he does not have Georgian ancestry? Mar4d (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a very smart move - you will also not be able to p[rove he does not have a Nigerian ancestry. Anyway, I asked uninvolved users to look at the issue. I hope they will not forget your edit warring to restore BLP violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't seem to understand your rather aggressive approach regarding this matter. I don't have anything personal against you. I do believe we have interacted before and I appreciate some of the work you do here. My stand on this issue is the same regardless, a category can and should be added to an article if it is sourced in the article content, which is apparent here. Mar4d (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:United Arab Emirates Wikipedia administration

Category:United Arab Emirates Wikipedia administration, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. DexDor (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Emiratis in the United Kingdom

Hi. Good work on Emiratis in the United Kingdom. There are many more "X in the United Kingdom" articles that would benefit from your input, I you're keen! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks, I'm always keen on working on migration-related articles, having created quite a few myself. If time allows me, I'd be willing to lend in a helping hand in more such articles. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Great. Many of them, like Emiratis in the United Kingdom, have very few regular editors, so have fallen into disrepair and are rather dated in their content. There are a few, such as Somalis in the United Kingdom, which are the subject of lots of debate amongst a small number of editors, which would benefit from wider input. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I just made some changes to the British Pakistanis article, which came up in my watchlist when you edited it earlier. Let me know what you think. I've tried to replace population figures from a mis-mash of sources with those from the 2011 census. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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. 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. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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. 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. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Zaigham Khan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zaigham Khan 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/Zaigham Khan 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. Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tariq Tafu

The article Tariq Tafu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks sufficient indicia of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pakistan studies journals

Category:Pakistan studies journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pahariwood

The article Pahariwood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

your reversion

Adding Iranians to the related "see also" section is wrong on the British Pakistani page as they are not counted as Asians per the British census, unlike Pakistanis, Indians, and other groups heavily related to Pakistanis. On top of that, 98% of Irans ethnic groups are completely dissimilar to Pakistan. (Only the 2% comprising the Baloch)

If you want to list "neighbouring groups" then China has to be listed as well, as they border Pakistan. Don't forget Chinese and Pakistanis are both Asians. However, if you're keen about "related groups", then you have to add Saudis in the UK, Omanis in the UK, Bahrainis/Qataris in the UK, etc as well as a significant amount of their populations are descendants of Pakistani migrants and are holders of their passports.

It's as if let's say, on the "Koreans in Britain" or "Mongolians in Britain" page, Russians in Britain would be added to the "see also", just because Russia and North Korea and Russia and Mongolia border each other. That's just wrong and not appropriate. 84.241.193.202 (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Review Edits made on Imran Khan's page

Hi - can I request you to review these edits [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imran_Khan&diff=655521119&oldid=653432413 ] made by a certain Wikipedia user on Imran Khan page - it seems to be negative propaganda - these edits were inserted continuously between the timeframes March 3rd 2015 to March 9th 2015 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imran_Khan&diff=650488756&oldid=649245507 ] - I chose to undo them and he has again gone to revert them. I do not want to get into a delete-undelete debate and hope a senior editor like yourself can evaluate if the text should / should-not remain - in all neutrality you shall see that it has the intent of it being negative dirty propaganda --- Thanks --- Dr. Awab Alvi (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Awab. I've not made many edits to the Imran Khan article in the recent past but it is indeed in my WP:WATCHLIST. Nevertheless, I've gone through the article and have done a minor revamp, including toning down some negative WP:POV in line with neutrality and trimming away BLP violations. I've provided some recommendations regarding such content at Talk:Imran Khan/Archives/2016/April#Some minor edits. For the future, anyone prior to reverting or adding in similar content should be directed to the talk page and be advised to discuss the issue there, as per that thread. Any edit or escalation made without WP:CONSENSUS can be legitimately reverted. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Perfect - I appreciate the effort you went to cleanse and re-format this article, Thank you --- Dr. Awab Alvi (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Good work on British Pakistanis

Hi. As a follow up to my previous comments, I just wanted to say thanks for your recent edits to British Pakistanis. It's good to see someone making lots of small, incremental, well-sourced changes that add up to making a real difference to an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again :) I plan to spin out some sub-article/s in the near future since the main article seems to be getting too long and does not appear to have enough capacity for further large content expansions. Mar4d (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It was also be great if the article could gain good article status. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that it previously had GA status but for (whatever) reasons it was demoted. Nevertheless, it would be good to revisit that and see if it could fare for GA again. Mar4d (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking into that today. It seems it was promoted to GA with no documented review or discussion taking place, so I requested that it be revisited, and it was demoted straight away because it didn't meet the criteria. I think we can get it there though. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Durrani Empire Map

Hi,

Durrani empire map, which is located in Durrani Empire, has not a reliable source. The borders, specially in southern areas are exactly the same as today's Pakistan which was created in 1948. There was no Pakistan at that time. Also, Mashhad was controlled by the Shahrukh Afshar, after Nader death in 1747 and was controlled by him until Agha Mohammad Khan of Qajar dystany defeated Zand Kngdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix2535 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Kindly do not change the pictures section

First of all you mentioned that inflating the picture box is against WP:MOS. I have read it all along and nowhere such policy is mentioned at all. So i am not hindering any rules by inflating that box. No wikipedia policy disallow you with such acts. Secondly the argument that British Pakistan speak or understand Urdu only is utterly false. I am a British Pakistani and this information is totally wrong. Many Second generation Pakistanis adopted English as their first language. Moreover the last picture box do not represent a diverse group of Britiah Pakistanis. The problem with the British Pakistani community is that there are not many role models and lack of such examples deviate our population. More examples will lead them in a better manner. So kindly make some other argument to undo my revisions. There is nothing wrong as long as the contribution is on a positive note. Moreover integration and diversity should be witnessed from such representation and my contribution did that. I hope you will take these notes on a professional unbiased manner rather than on a biased manner. Thanks and have a nice week. Khuda hafiz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronties (talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

RM not RfC

A discussion on change in title should happen as WP:RM and not as WP:RFC. Please start a Requested Move section. I closed the move discussion section as that was improper way of staring RM. nafSadh did say 17:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

When you created the RM you used {{Requested move}} directly, but you should WP:substitute it using {{subst:Requested move|New name}}. Read more at: Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move. Cheers! nafSadh did say 18:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for fixing it up. Mar4d (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Invite

Feel free to participate [3]. Xtremedood (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

AHLM13

@Favonian:; @Ravensfire: The account looks like its been hacked. We need an admin to block straight away. I've posted at ANI but no response yet. Mar4d (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I was posting on ANI at the same time as you but you beat me. This does not seem like AHLM13. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert Vandalism

Hi User, Kindly revert your POV vandalism on pages like Overseas Pakistanis and Pakistanis. You have deleted sourced and well established facts. You can also read Talk:Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh. Kindly cooperate with Wikipedia in constructive manner. Thank you.--Human3015 talk • 11:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

First, learn WP:CIVIL and do not refer to my edits as POV or vandalism. You are the one pushing unsourced POV into articles. Stranded Pakistanis are not Pakistanis or Overseas Pakistanis. Accept this and stop adding WP:OR violations on articles. Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And don't point to Talk:Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh. That is an unresolved dispute and until it is settled, don't add disputed claims to other articles. Mar4d (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If dispute is not resolved then why you are deleting it?--Human3015 talk • 11:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Last time I'm going to say this if you don't understand: Pakistanis and Overseas Pakistanis article is for citizens of Pakistan. People who were born in Pakistan, are citizens/nationals of Pakistan, or whose ancestors are from Pakistan. Stranded Pakistanis is for Urdu-speaking people from Bangladesh, and does not have anything to do with these articles. There is a discussion going over the title of that article. Stranded Pakistanis are not legally citizens of Pakistan, neither do they fit the definition of Overseas Pakistanis, which is a term defined by the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis. So I'm going to ask you again to desist from adding factually incorrect information on the concerned articles. Mar4d (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)