User talk:Mar4d
| This is Mar4d's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 28 days  |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
|
.jpeg?lang=en){kind=small}
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Contact
[edit]Hi,
I'm reaching out to find out about posting guidelines, and possible posting for a specific article. How can one contact you?
AfC notification: Draft:Adnan Dhool has a new comment
[edit]
Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Category:Pakistani political philosophers has been nominated for merging
[edit]
Category:Pakistani political philosophers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Psychastes (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello Sir,
This is regarding the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict article. In the third-party casualties and losses section in the infobox, there is this "Many defense systems damaged" under the Pakistani section and it is cited by a NY Times article. However, upon close inspection of the source, there is vague wording and it seems there are directly or indirectly quoting Indian claims rather than independent analysis. In one instance, they cite another one of their NY Times article inside the said article that actually is an Indian claim. Could you please have a look at it. Your help would be appreciated.
Thank You. An Asphalt (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- @An Asphalt: Please bring this along with the quoted text on the article talk page, if there is a source misrepresentation. I would need to have another read of the article in my free time. Mar4d (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)