User talk:Mar4d/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

3RR

You have not only broken the restriction Sal put on you, you have also violated 3rr with this revert[1] please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a second.... is it not true that you re-added the content without having discussion first? So, on the contrary, I think you have broken your restriction by re-adding content that was objectionable. Mar4d (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The rules on 3rr say specify that a block extends for 24 hours. On what basis has this then been prescribed for 48 hours? Also, this block is absurd in many ways. I did not even get enough time to clarify my actions before the block was enforced. I also challenge whether the 'fourth' revert was even a revert; it was actually removal of objectionable content which was being discussed on the talk page and which had no consensus. I do not think that constituted a revert. And to top it off, the admin has not explained the rationale for why the block is 48 hours. It should be reduced to 24. This block is preventing my contribution to an FAC article. 24 hours is enough for 3rr, 48 is really excessive. Especially when I have a clean block record on Wikipedia. Mar4d (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"...I have a clean block record on Wikipedia" I'm not sure how you can say that when you have two previous blocks for 3RR (in August and November). Since you've had two 24 hour blocks before for 3RR, 48 hours is more than justifiable as an escalation here. only (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It was a simple revert of the previous edit. The "rules" state specifically that "24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations." You may be looking a different block record than I am; you will need to expand on why you feel your block record is "clean". Kuru (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

See my request below to get my perspective on how I feel about my block log. But even if, for the sake of argument, it is acknowledged that I have been blocked two times before for edit warring, I think you should take into account other factors too such as that I have been on Wiki for over 2 years, blocked only twice and that the last time that I was blocked was four months ago. That is not by any means a "repeated or aggravated violation". Mar4d (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock|Well, as a matter of fact, it may interest you to know that both the "two previous blocks for 3RR" referred to above were against sockpuppets of an indef community banned user who has a notorious record of edit warring (not only with me, but a whole range of editors). I am not going to go into details, but someone like User:Magog the Ogre can explain you better about that user. So in other words, the point I am putting across is that this is my first 3rr against a "legitimate" user account, and I regard my block log relatively "clean" in that regard. Having been on Wikipedia for over 2 years, with close to 30,000 edits, and with only three blocks in the entire period (two involving an edit warrior sockpuppeteer), and having seen users with far worse block records than me getting away with 24 hour blocks on 3rr, I feel I deserve at least some courtesy/leniency. Mar4d (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)}}

After looking at the two previous 3RR problems, it does appear you were trolled by socks of a community banned user. I'll reduce this to 24 hours per your request. Kuru (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my perspective into account. Much appreciated :) Mar4d (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock|It's been over 24 hours, why is my block still active? Mar4d (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)}}

Not sure. I've manually unblocked - try now. Kuru (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm getting the following message: "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." And btw, the block is still set to 12 March. Mar4d (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, those should be clear as well. Try one more time. Kuru (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it's working now. Thanks :) Mar4d (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. Apologies for the less than graceful expiry. Kuru (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence

The RFC is going nowere, I have brought the issue to DRN [2] Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Check your mail

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

Hey, thanks for the notification. Just noticed that there's some older emails from you. Lol, I actually haven't visited my inbox for ages, so just let me know whenever you send one. Will reply soon. Mar4d (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, those must be months old. Alright, will add the template next time...lol. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(The Nation (Pakistani newspaper) not a reliable source? WTF?

Not when it is an Op-Ed. So well done for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would a piece published in a reliable news source be "unreliable"?. In this case, the writer is also notable and has written several pieces for the newspaper. Unless you bring up relevant policy backing your claim, your argument probably doesn't stand. Mar4d (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. WP:RS would be the policy. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact The Op-Ed is not only being used as a statement of fact it is being used as a definition. Like I said, well done for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, though you may want to re-read the phrase but are rarely reliable for statements of fact; rarely does not necessarily equate to always, especially in a case like this where the author appears to be notable and the definition also seems to be in common use. See for example the use of the term/neologism "Pakistanophobia" mentioned in Fox News: 'Pakistanophobia' Grips France. Mar4d (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have better things to do DS? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• No he has not,he should take a cup of tea with honey and think about!! Justice007 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories.

• Hi dear,would you please take a look at British Lingua (Institution) for adding relevant categories.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wow,very speedy.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem :) Mar4d (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Union councils or populated places

Hey Mar4d! I am here to get an advice from you on an important issue. There are two categories of every District in Pakistan, Union councils of XXX and Populated places in XXX. Now tell me how will be that if all Union councils categories redirect to their respective Populated places categories. Please tell me, should they redirect or remain separated as Union councils?-- Assassin'S Creed^{T - E - C - G -} 10:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A union council is basically a form of local village-level government in Pakistan, so these categories are largely relevant. I think they should remain. Any articles on union councils that are categorised into the district 'populated places' categories should be categorised into the union council categories instead. On the other hand, large cities or towns in a district (for example Raiwind in Lahore or Khushpur in Faisalabad) can remain in the 'populated places' categories. The same can be said for tehsils - there are categories for those too (see Category:Tehsils of Pakistan) which contain tehsils of each district. Again, it wouldn't be reasonable to mix articles of 'tehsils' with articles of 'union councils' in the same district "populated places" category, so I think all district populated places categories should have subcategories for 'tehsils' too, similiar to union councils. By categorising articles into their respective appropriate categories (union councils, tehsils etc.), we would be following the structure of the local government structure in Pakistan (see the chart for example at the bottom of Administrative units of Pakistan). Mar4d (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So to put it simply, there should be a category for each district (eg. Category:Populated places in Rawalpindi District). Then each district category should have two subcategories: one for tehsils and one for union councils (eg. Category:Tehsils of Rawalpindi District and Category:Union councils of Rawalpindi District). All articles should be sorted into whichever is appropriate, while cities, towns or large suburbs can just be put in the main "populated places" category. I have also noticed that all the categories at Category:Tehsils of Pakistan are only divided in province-levels. I think it would be a good idea to reduce their size and divide them further into district levels. I might start creating these new categories when I get free. The tehsil templates at Category:Pakistan subdivision templates may help in doing this. Mar4d (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I understood. An other thing when I am working on templates, there are some union councils templates, I think they should redirect to Neighbourhoods templates because I am making a separate list of union councils in all templates (e.g Template:Neighbourhoods of Lahore). What do you think about it?-- Assassin'S Creed^{T - E - C - G -} 17:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Mar4d (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

May you please.

• For your kind help to categories at Satyapal Anand.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ami Birangana Bolchi

Would you be so kind as to translate this for me please, I have found three or four different versions so far and am unsure which is correct. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a Bengali phrase. I am not a speaker of Bengali, so can't really comment on this. Mar4d (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please

• Please add relevant categories at Rosaria Piomelli,and lot of thanks for. And are you familiar to upload images to wiki articles??. Justice007 (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look as soon as I get some time. Mar4d (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

FAC

I've nominated Pakistan for FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'll be around and follow that closely. Mar4d (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Terrorism

Check out the sources I provided at Talk:State-sponsored terrorism as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good find, I'll try to see what I can do. By the way, you're free to edit this page yourself anytime, if you feel you have something to add or improve. Though I'll confess that I don't currently have any intentions to publish this article yet until maybe after a month (or even longer) down the track. The current aim is to get as much WP:RS about this, because otherwise, this article will end up looking something like this straight away. But anyway, feel free to edit it. Mar4d (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure... I'll add anything adequate I find. It won't be that if you add sources precisely backing up the content. I tried to add that content along with sources to that article too but there were too many editwarriors around who didn't like the content.. so I left it for the time being. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Did you add The foreign policy of Pakistan: ethnic impacts on diplomacy, 1971-1994 to the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War during your recent edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why have you reverted the article? The article lacks clarification, context and also failed to provide extensive details of the language issue, which I added. There are also some grammar issues. Mar4d (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted it because whoever edited it has totally misrepresented the source, that is why. Discuss any further changes on the talk page please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend you start a section on the talk page for the tag you just put on the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Glitch

I think your browser didn't fully load the content [3]. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, that's what probably happened. I don't remember deleting anything. Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, happens with me often, so I check by dragging the scroll to the end before making a save. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is actively undergoing a major edit

Do you know what that means? It means stop adding shit to the article whilst I expand it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, some civility can be used while posting messages. I will remove any future messages that contain inappropriate language. As for the tags, they are going to stay until some clarification is given as to whether this article is about Indian military abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, numbering in the thousands, or just a propaganda piece about a militant insurgency which is nowhere near as far as human rights abuses against civilians are concerned. Mar4d (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Shove your request for civility, when the inuse tag is on an article it is "civil" to not edit. So stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar4d for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So you've resorted on accusations now. Go ahead and load up more of your usual drama there, I don't give a damn anymore. I'm not going to waste anymore time responding to you. In the end, it's you who's losing credibility here. Mar4d (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? This from the guy who accused me of socking based on how another user used references? At least I had good reason to be suspicious. I have also reported your latest bout of stalking on Sal's talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How about you get lost? Mar4d (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a day for giving the impression of following another editor around despite being warned. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is nothing but bullshit. So correcting articles by removing non-verifiable, non-existent, unsourced WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS [4] has now become a blockable offense? I'm sorry, but as an active member of WikiProject Pakistan, I have the freedom to go around and edit whatever article I find of interest, especially when I feel my edits are for the benefit of the article. You are in no position, neither is there a legal restriction enforced on me, to prevent me from doing so. Also, hounding is accompanied with tendentiousness editing, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. My edits are clearly content-related and on-topic, neither are they disruptive, pointy or directed to any specific person; as long as I stay focused on content work, this accusation is entirely invalid. If some user cannot tolerate my editing and improving of articles which are of interest to me, that is their own problem and they should put up with it; if that is too difficult, then it's better for them to simply cease to edit Pakistan-related articles which overlap my sphere of expertise/editing or leave Wikipedia because I am not going to take dictations or be intimidated on what to edit.

In addition, there has to be extensive evidence of hounding for this block to be valid. The blocking admin simply concluded things just by looking at four or five diffs. I have pretty much made my case clear here how none of those actions were technically hounding. In one way or the other, most of them were simply drive-by edits related to content (eg. adding categories, notifying a user that an article they have created is redundant to an already existing one, participating in an AfD to give my opinion). All of them were for the benefit of the project, with no disruption whatsoever on my part. Practically, WP:AGF should have applied here, but it seems that is too much to ask for. Mar4d (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you're going to start off with such incivil profanity to characterize the block, I will decline without reviewing your edit history. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to the reviewing admin. Mar4d actions were discussed on my talk page and he was asked twice, [5] and [6], not to do that. He chose to ignore my warnings and, for that, he got blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And once again, I shall question you to provide proper proof/evidence of hounding or disruptive behavior. You have until now not responded. It seems that a bit of admin-shopping is all it takes to get an admin on one's side and slap sanctions on someone. How come these sanctions are one-sided? I've never seen DS get blocked for hounding (and I mean, proper hounding). I've got diffs of some rather concerning behaviour. Will you change your mind if I provide them? Mar4d (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Objectionable phrase striked out. Please review this request throughly. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request and the comments immediately above this are basically a series of attacks on the blocking admin, who did clearly warn you. Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Attacking is one thing, demanding proof or evidence for something that has not implicitly happened is another issue. Salvio has not still not adequately replied to where he thinks there is evidence of hounding. I do not consider those warnings as valid. Since it's obvious that my perspective on the issue is not going to be understood and taken into consideration, I consider this discussion a waste of time, so I shall not be adding any more unblock requests here. Thank you for your time. Mar4d (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Apart from your refusal to gain a consensus or even discuss, and apart from your misrepresentation of sources these two take the biscuit. Morning News. 7 December 1947 (in Bengali)The Azad (a daily newspaper) (Abul Kalam Shamsuddin, Dhaka). 11 December 1948 Please provide scans + translations of these so I can verify them. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

1-rr

Hello Mar4d, when you deal with a user who is under a WP:1RR all attempts to game said revert restriction to get the article to read the way you'd like it, by trying to entrap your opponent into breaking his restriction, can lead to blocks for disruption.

For the future, when undoing Darkness Shines's edits (or the edits of any other person who is under a revert restriction), please consider yourself bound by the same restriction. If you revert more than once you *will* be blocked for attempting to game Darkness Shines's restriction and to get him blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• In case you had somehow missed this [7] means you have already broken the restriction as you had already reverted [8] less than 24hrs ago, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• This still counts as a revert [9] Please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No this doesn't. Only the *undo* counts as a revert. I am not aware of any restrictions on manually editing out content that has issues, for being discussed on the talk page. Mar4d (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but it does, read WP:3RR Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. We can ask Sal if you desire Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well there you go, the quote itself says "undoing". I did not undo, I manually edited out i.e. deleted the said objectionable content, which is different from reverting or undoing. Haven't you been doing that all along? Mar4d (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Sal to explain it to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but today is a hectic day – deadlines, you know... However, technically, when determining if an action is a revert, I examine its result: if it is largely the same, then the action is a revert (the addition of similar material, for instance, even if phrased in a slightly different way if repeated counts as a revert). Therefore, if you first undo Darkness Shines's edit and, then, you remove the very same material manually, you have violated the restriction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But I have already made it clear that the "undo" doesn't count. I did the "manual" removal to make up for the undo. Therefore, only the manual removal is intentional, not the undo which has been discredited. On that account, I do not feel that I have not violated 1rr. I have removed the material only once. Mar4d (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rape in Indian controlled Kashmir and Punjab 1984

Hey Mar4d I have noticed you seem to be involved in articles to do human rights violations committed by India I was wondering if you believe a separate article on the mass rapes which occur in Indian controlled Kashmir is worthwhile and the mass rape of Sikh women during 1984? since other wiki articles are based on instances of rape?

Here are a few sources these ones focus on rape largely in Kashmir: 1) http://www.gendercide.org/case_kashmir_punjab.html 2) http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/jul/230711-Army-orders-probe-into-rape-allegations-by-Kashmir-woman.htm 3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1940088.stm 4) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-11/india/28067205_1_shafeeq-ahmad-shopian-qazi-abdul-karim 5) http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_718711.html This source is particulalry important as it reveals a list of 1,400 rape victims since 2006 so only 6 years ago and the Indian army has already raked up 1,400 rapes 6) http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/467fca501a.html From human rights watch 7)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17268355 recent source about 400 officers being charged since 2009 again these are Large numbers and cannot be whitewashed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeros8946 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this deserves a separate article due to the magnitude of the indian armys rape statistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeros8946 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I dont know how to priperly space things but there is also wikileaks which states India has has been using systemic torture in kashmir http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8208084/WikiLeaks-India-systematically-torturing-civilians-in-Kashmir.html please take some time out and read as I dont have the relevant know how on making new articles but I think the sources clearly show rape is a big issue here is bit of information from source "According to the cables, which will prove a major embarrassment for the Indian government, the ICRC interviewed 1,296 detainees of whom 681 said they had been tortured. Of those, 498 claimed to have been electrocuted, 381 said they were suspended from the ceiling, and 304 cases were described as “sexual.”" Thanks for time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeros8946 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, I intend to write further on this topic and your sources above are indeed good finds among many reliable sources available. I will definitely take into account these links when working on the article. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I found further sources: [10] Xeros8946 (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi Xeros8946, good finds there. I think you should add the sources and the text you want directly to the article. That way, other users know what the consensus is. If you can not format them properly I or Mar4d can correct those. You might have to debate on changes on the article talk page as well. Mar4d's advise about try the sandbox is good, but if you can edit here, I suppose you are experienced enough to add them to the article too. Don't worry if some one removes them... the next step would be to debate on the talk page and get them in according to the consensus. The sandbox idea in my opinion will only be considered as the views of the editor who copies them to the article and have comparatively lesser weight in consensus. I would advise you to be bold and directly edit the article.. ofcourse you can first test in the sandbox and see how it turns out. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fake encounters

This is about staged killings of "terrorists" who are actually civilians here is the BBC source: [11] here is another follow up by BBC on fake encounters in 2010 [12] The Hindu a Indian source also reports the killing of a mentally challenged civilian [13] this occured in 2011

Mass Graves

This is about the huge unmarked graves found in indian occupied kashmir the sources are as follows :[14] this is general discussion on Guardian regarding these graves. [15] Amnesty international referring to mass graves and other human rights atrocities. [16] Indian source reporting the deeds of the military. [17] BBC reports on the thousands of unmarked graves and thousands of missing men women and children in occupied kashmir. P.S if you think my posts are cluttering your talk page I could remove it and put it on your sandbox maybe? thanks again Xeros8946 (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these are indeed useful WP:RS links that will definitely help. By the way, you are free to contribute to the article and help improve it if you are interested. If you do not have much expertise on creating/structuring articles as you say, I can help you along. At the moment, my Sandbox 4 is empty. You are free to write your version of the article there (if you are interested, of course) and incorporate the above links. I would be willing to help out with the structuring/formatting/whatever needs improvement, then we can copy over the finished piece to the article Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. What do you say? Mar4d (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• UN report expresses concern over enforced disappearances, mass graves in Indian-controlled Kashmir

Recommended for deletion

Salam, just to let you know plese that I have recommended an article on Waleed Iqbal for deletion (pl ref to talk page of article) on the grounds that the subject is not really personally 'notable' by Wiki standards, at this time. Id be grateful if you could please also participate in this discussion, thanks. 39.54.48.210 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja

You're right, I was thinking of doing this a couple of days ago. I have redirected the article to Muhammad Iqbal for now. Mar4d (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Does the target article mention the subject? If not, put it up for CSD. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, though I think a small line on Waleed Iqbal somewhere in a sentence about family wouldn't hurt. This person does have partial notability nevertheless, after joining the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf as a politician. Mar4d (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea so that the redirect doesn't go to CSD. As the editing history is preserved, if more info is available later or more events occur, the article can be split back. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, will do this in the morning first up. Going to sleep for now, after creating Template:Sindhi language :) It's been a busy and crazy day (both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia). Mar4d (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hah, bet on it. Good work with the templates. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Abpara

---

Notifying you

Dear Mar4d, I want to notify you of this SPI request. If I am wrong with this, I apologize. If not, please be more cooperative. If you want to comment on it, I offer you to copy-paste it there. JCAla (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG if that turns out false. Doesn't seem to be good cause presented either. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think you've gone nuts. This is absurdity at its height. Why on earth do you think I would create an account? Apart from the fact that it's not physically possible (currently, account creation is blocked on my IP address), I am not that desperate to go around editing Wiki just for the sake of a 48 hr (now reduced to 24 hr) block. But whatever, if it somehow helps you get over your suspicion, go ahead. And about the block on Commons, don't even get me started on that one. That's a long story involving a cock-and-bull SPI fairy tale made up by User:Lagoo sab (think you know him well). I intended to appeal my block there but haven't bothered, because 1) It's a waste of time 2) I hardly go on Commons. Mar4d (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• And what's with the following nonsense: .... Also, the name is quite telling as it speaks of revenge. Mar4d had been working on "revenge" for another user's pointing out of atrocities committed by the Pakistani military. The "revenge" now consists of pointing out abuses by India's military. Have you gone high, or something? Mar4d (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's bet.. whose sock is this? [18] --lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A new twist to the tale! Speechless. This one is way too blatant. And obvious. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Mar4d (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse, who else would have that taste in sources and story dumps. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The quacking is rather deafening, indeed. They either use megaphones or industrial-strength amplifiers with matching speakers. Mar4d (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotta give you that, you two are truly funny. JCAla (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mard do you live in UK? NerosRevenge (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

MARD my IP is british if that helps? NerosRevenge (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

sorry for getting you involved in this but when those two clowns are proven false I suggest you report them for harassing you all the best and sorry again NerosRevenge (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Images regarding FAC

Hey, if you can upload an image related to poverty in Pakistan with some compatible license, it will resolve some of the issues raised at the FAC. I'm looking online (and on Wikipedia) since I don't have any free ones in print. Poverty in Pakistan had only one which I added. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Aah yes, see my comment on this at the bottom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1. I think the image does not neccessarily have to be about poverty. Something more representative would be an agriculture-related picture i.e. of a rural farm, etc. Mar4d (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. You can replace probably. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I let my anger blind my judgement, it should have been obvious you were not sockpuppeting. As a gesture of goodwill please see here [19] you will find a link at the bottom of that page, from page 79 onward you will find a great deal of content for the article idea I stole. It is a superb source which I was going to use in my rewrite, now it is yours. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And just to warn you, p82 is horrifying, the sheer brutality is obscene. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ikram Sehgal

The article Ikram Sehgal has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your restriction

[20] You just broke it, again. Please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Err, can you clarify how? It would be breaking the restriction if I had reverted the second time, but I have only reverted once. Not against any restriction. Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Any action which removes in whole or in part another editors contributions is a revert. The first time you removed it was a revert. I think you need another person to explain this to you as I obviously failed the last time this happened. Ask Magog or Sal. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That does not make sense, I only reverted *once*. If it were more than once, that would be a seperate issue of course. But I see no restrictions on reverting the first time. It's the purpose of the *undo* button in the first place. Mar4d (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Look WP:3RR A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. So your first removal of Ethnic cleansing is a revert, as you reversed the actions of another editor. You do not just have to hit undo for it to be a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So does this mean if I do not agree with a change you make to an article, I cannot revert it at all? That doesn't sound right... Mar4d (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No of course not, if I add new content it is new, so not a revert. If you remove it that is a revert. If I modify content that is a revert, if you reverted me then I would be unable to revery you. Clearer? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Restore

I got the original history of Rape in Indian-administered Kashmir restored in my user space at User:TopGun/Rape in Indian-administered Kashmir. It was deleted due to socking, but the content is good. Feel free to copy it into the main space article (with attribution to users - not article as it will get deleted from my userspace), though a history merge can also be the solution (which I was thinking of) at a later time when this can be improved. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts I've added it. [21] --lTopGunl (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Right. That article is of reasonable length. I shall be adding more sources to it, sometime in the future. Mar4d (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There was some discussion of merging it to human right abuses article about that area, but I think this article has grown enough to already make that one long. Probably include a summary section there and further improve this one as a spin off. There were copy vios in Nero's version, I've rephrased them. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mar4d. You have new messages at Assassin's Creed's talk page.
Message added 20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Assassin'S Creed^{T - E - C - G -} 20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mar4d. You have new messages at Template_talk:WikiProject_Pakistan#Instructions_missing.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank You

Thank you for the Barnstar! Jainism in Pakistan has a fantastic history. Alexander the Great encountered Jains when he invaded that region. Check Gymnosophists. People have started making efforts in preserving this rich heritage, check [22] [23]. You might also find these links useful [24] [25]. I look forward to working with you in making this valuable information available on Wikipedia. --Aayush18 (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Being an avid reader of the history of the subcontinent and being a native of the city of Peshawar (which has an ancient history), I agree with you that Jainism, like many other religions, traditions and cultures, has a rich history in the region. I had intended to create an article on this historical topic once upon a time, but the plan never materialized. Anyway, it's good to see this information being made available. Please continue to improve the article if you have further sources. If you need any help with something, just ping me on my talk page. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested content

I added the content you suggested at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War to the article (which you are aware of) and recently rephrased it to remove any suspected copy vios... since you suggested it to be added in the first place, can you further verify if the source supports the content as it was removed here? I did some searches when I was rephrasing, there was some close paraphrasing so I don't see how the content is not supported by the source. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my notice. I'll take a look into this after a while. Currently, I'm too physically exhausted to even type :) Mar4d (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

note

[26] I think you know that the new edit does not belong on a article about India Naptimes (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

[27] There is a article on this which has massive non notability issues while the article on the mass human rights abuses in indian occupied kashmir has been merged by nationalist pov pushers who wish to minimise Indias massacres I think the above article needs to be deleted or another one made about Indian-administered Kashmir exclusively before the pov merging Naptimes (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a while.. Mar4d (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you make of this?

[28] [29]. Definitely a sock IP... don't know whose. Sock without known masters are tricky... but a sock it is... report? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

These socks are bamboozling my mind. I can't really figure out who the master is, but I share your suspicion that this is an obvious sock. I think a better course of action is to strike the IP's comment on AfD and ask the IP to register an account to vote (since IPs are not even supposed to cast votes on AfDs in the first place, and the recent drama what with all the socking, justifies this action). Mar4d (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added spa tag.. I'll also add the SPI diff and leave it on closer. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO striking IPs comment is not appropriate by anyone involved in the discussion. Tagging SPA is enough. --SMS ^Talk 15:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's stick with the SPA tag for now. On a side note, I have suspicions that Mr. 200 may be Awaaz-e-Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have almost same suspicion about this IP (in fact I am considering some more editors too, may be I am wrong). And this IP is following you since 12 March (commented on LTTE pic). Probably this IP is from Brazil. --SMS ^Talk 15:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Brazil? That was unexpected. Although slightly off-topic and more of an assumption, there are not many Indians in Brazil. I think proxies may be in work here. But then again, I might be wrong. Mar4d (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You were right it was a proxy according to DeltaQuad [30]. --SMS ^Talk 07:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mar4d. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 18:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.0.179 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. This barnstar pretty much sums up my suffering of Wikiholism. :) Mar4d (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Attia Bano Qamar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Attia Bano Qamar 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/Attia Bano Qamar 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion needed

Hi! your input is needed here. --SMS ^Talk 19:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Mar4d (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Siachen Glacier avalanche

Can you check the categories etc (I added some though)? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm looks fine at the moment, can't really think of any other category currently that could be added. The article could do with some expansion, here's a source [31]. I'm probably going to sign off for now (it's been a long day), so I'll hopefully contribute tomorrow. That being said, let's spare a thought for the soldiers serving at these high altitudes and hope they're safe. Mar4d (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Good then. I'll check the source. Yeah, hoping for the best... the sepoys are generally village people and some times the only supporters in the family. So long then. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, the BBC source specified in the article discusses the incident in more detail, just had a brief look at it. Probably a better idea to use that as the main source for now. There'll be more information available in a couple of hours. Mar4d (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mar4d. You have new messages at Template talk:WikiProject Pakistan.
Message added 14:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SMS ^Talk 14:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You probably removed the classification variable from this talk page banner so if it is not to be added back related documentation and now the Assessment drive page may need to be updated. --SMS ^Talk 14:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these classification variables were actually removed from the template last year. However, the documentation was not updated, hence I believe that this is the source of all the confusion going on. I have left a note on Yasht101's talk page about these now-defunt variables so as to clear up this confusion. The reason that these variables were taken out is because they were not being used much, and also they were redundant to WikiProjects already existing on the topics (eg. there is already a WikiProject Pakistani history and a WikiProject Pakistani politics, hence no real need for the "H" and "P" class variables.) There are also WikiProjects on Pakistani literature, geography and sport however they have not been incorporated into the template yet to make up for the "L", "G" and "S" variables, I believe. Might be a good idea to do that soon. But as far as those non-existent class variables are concerned, I think they should be removed from the template documentation as they no longer exist. Mar4d (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, they are no more used, so updating the documentation of the template. --SMS ^Talk 11:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir Thank you for your kind invitation and directions and I have already signed up for WP Pakistan and shall certainly be interested in WP Azad Kashmir. I am grateful for your welcome. Regards AsadUK200 (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200