User talk:Burntsword

Qamaruzzaman Azmi
On your revert, did you mean to just revert the final addition by MM? Your edit summary only refered to the added materials, but didn't explain why you revert all of the policy-compliant removals that MM made in prior edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your edits just don't make sense. You reverted because you said something was "unsourced". But your revert re-added over 25K to the article. Your edit actually added unsourced or poorly sourced material. Please explain on the article talk page rather than reverting again. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude, you just reverted again without responding on the talk page. I posted a rather detailed explanation of the rationale behind my edits. Perhaps my rationale is incorrect or flawed, but your peers need more than a brief edit summary to understand why. Please actually respond on the talk page, explain what you find wrong and discuss things with other editors instead of simple reverting. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're reverting without prior discussion; you're now reverting the edits of two different editors as well. I really think you should actually review Edit warring before accusing Qwyrxian and myself of violating the policy - I don't think you've read or understood what edit warring means. Maybe you're right and we're wrong, but if so then you need to explain that to us on the article's talk page - you're edit summaries accusing us of things simply don't help us understand anything. Please take some time to cool off and go read and respond on the talk page before reverting anyone else's edits again. You're new here and this isn't a good way to start. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MezzoMezzo's being very nice here. I'm not going to be. One more revert from you (Burntsword) without first discussing the issue on the talk page and getting consensus will result in me requesting you be blocked. And one more personal attack against any other editor will also result in you being blocked. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. That means we discuss things when we have a dispute. Do it now, or you can't edit here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dudes, how can you call someone a "Barelvi" without knowing that he is a "Barelvi"? Where's the prove? Where's the evidence? Where's the referene? MM put a false reference! I've seen the history of both of you "collaborating" - it seems like you guys have something against the subject. You're not impartial or neutral. The subject's contents were good and well researched. Rather than helping to clean up you guys have been deleting chunks and chunks - now you've deleted 80% of the article. What's your problem dudes? And please don't threaten to block - I don't take threats too kindly. Not when we have been fighting for freedom of speech and free society! But if you really want to show your "collaborative power" then please go-ahead, make my day. I'll make it a mission to take you guys on with Wikipedia. Having seen your history on this article you guys are simply wrong! Burntsword (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I've just read about you MM - you say you're a Sunni. Having read your page, how would you feel if I called you a "Wahhabi" without any verifiable source? It's great that you've got Muslim friends to support you to get the Wikipedia accolade but on this subject you've been unfair and biased. Really surprised that Qwyrxian has been supporting you soooo firmly, without question and sooo fiercely! I wonder what kind of "collaborative project" you guys are running!Burntsword (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify three things for you very clearly:


 * 1) I'm not a "dude", and if I were, it's something I'd only let my friends call me.
 * 2) You have absolutely zero free speech rights here. Wikipedia is a privately owned website. Everyone edits here solely at the discretion of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Foundation has delegated the vast majority of actual responsibility to the editing community. And so if you break the rules, as you have been, you will be blocked. Period.
 * 3) The vast majority of the article was removed because it was unsourced or linked to unreliable sources.
 * Wait, let me add a fourth thing: your last two paragraphs make me almost certain that you are a returning user and not a new user as you are purporting to be. I won't tell you exactly why, because it will make it easier for you to successfully sockpuppet next time. I'm not going to open an SPI, because that's actually a bit of work, and unless you actually start editing responsibility, this account will be blocked on its own merits. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Incivility and personal attacks, specifically this edit summary], after being warned. This block is for 24 hours to make you understand that our policies are not optional--behavioral or content. So take this 24 hours to reflect on whether you want to actually contribute here PER our rules. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)