User talk:Ecomaster

Welcome!

 * }

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sunni Dawat-e-Islami has been reverted. Your edit here to Sunni Dawat-e-Islami was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/Allama-Maulana-Qamaruzzaman-Azmi/161394797254627?sk=info#!/pages/Allama-Maulana-Qamaruzzaman-Azmi/161394797254627?sk=wall) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Civility
Sir, please avoid uncivil language and borderline personal attacks as you did in this edit. You might disagree with an edit; in that case, discuss it with an editor. Wikipedia is not a battleground. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sir, I noticed that you reverted all my edits again here without giving a reason why. Can you please discuss matters first? I also recommend that you review the Edit warring policy. Thanks so much. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sir, STOP edit warring and STOP accusing others of vandalism without any basis. This is the third time I am contacting you on your page. Please review Reliable sources (and Vandalism, for that matter) and actually participate on the discussion page - if you continue like this, then I can guarantee you that you will not reap the results you want. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

___________________________

Sir, words used by you such "crap" and "rubbish" are uncivil. Your history of editing this article shows no impartial contribution. Nor any alternative veriable source. And now to make personal threats by saying above that "I can guarantee you that you will not reap the results you want" is simply unacceptable behaviour not befitting a reasonable impartial and civilised editor. Please kindly refrain from personal attacks and using uncivil language such "crap" as per Wikipedia rules. Please kindly remember that Wikipedia is used by many young people and children and the highest standard of conduct and professionalism must be adhered to by all editors.

Qamaruzzaman Azmi
On Qamaruzzaman Azmi, MezzoMezzo has provided a large number of policy compliant reasons for removing much of that material. A very large portion of what he removed was "verified" by sources that do not meet WP:RS (for example, self-published websites, Facebook, You tube, etc.). Please go to Talk:Qamaruzzaman Azmi and discuss the matter. In the mean time, please never call another editors good faith contributions "vandalism"--doing that is considered to be a personal attack and thus forbidden per WP:NPA. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC) __________________________________

Sir, I would like to open the floor for discussion. Please see MezzoMezzo's history of editing this article. So sources have been used. Using words such as "crap" and "rubbish" are not policy compliant reasons for removing much of that material.


 * I've advised MezzoMezzo to start editing more slowly and provide more detailed explanations on talk. I think the problem is that MM knows our policies very well, and thus is able to rapidly see what should be cut; he forgets that others don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V as well, and thus the details need to be explained on talk. I look forward to seeing you join in the conversations on the article's talk page that I believe will be opened soon. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to kindly repeat again - words used by MM such "crap" are uncivil. MM's history of editing this article shows no impartial contribution. Nor any alternative veriable source. And now to make personal threats by saying above that "I can guarantee you that you will not reap the results you want" is simply unacceptable behaviour not befitting a reasonable impartial and civilised editor. Please advise MM to kindly refrain from personal attacks and using uncivil language such "crap". You say that "MM knows our policies very well, and thus is able to rapidly see what should be cut; he forgets that others don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V" ....does this policy state MM should use words like "crap" Sir? If not then, MM doesn't know your policies very well. If yes then there is something fundamentally sick about your policies as many young people and children use Wikipedia including my own son who not only reads the article but goes on the "history" and "talk" pages as well! Surely, the highest standard of conduct and professionalism must be adhered to by all editors. I'm very disappointed and upset about such uncivil language and behaviour - and you Sir, have the audacity to define what vandalism is or not? EcoMaster 11:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in your country "crap" is a particularly unacceptable word; however, at least in the US where I'm from, it's acceptable, usable on television (usually), could be said by politicians (in sparing), and probably would go without reprimand at many elementary schools. In fact, the word is specifically used as a replacement for more unacceptable words. Are there people who don't like it? Sure. But it's extraordinarily mild in most of the US and I believe the UK. The fact is, what is or isn't acceptable language varies quite widely by culture and and social group and economic level and religion and other factors. In some cultures, for instance, writing "God" is extremely offensive, despite most of the English speaking world considering a fine, often even a very good word. civility is not about a list of good or bad words, it's about how we treat other people. Calling good faith edits vandalism is an attack, because you're accusing the other user of bad faith and an intent to harm the encyclopedia. Calling unreferenced material (note, it's not editors, it's the material) "crap" is not an attack, and wouldn't be considered as such. I'm sorry if this offends you, but it is how the "culture of Wikipedia" works. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I was born in the UK and visit the US regularly. Let me tell you the word "crap" in both these countries is seen as "vulgar" - and parents aren't happy for their children to use this term. So what you say is absolute nonsense. EcoMaster 17:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um...okay. You're welcome to think what you like, but I've heard politicians call things "crap" openly and I've seen the word used on broadcast TV, uncensored. It's certainly not the nicest words, and some parents would prevent their children from using it, but certainly not all of them. In any event, it's an established principle (based on a number of ANI discussions and I think even an Arbcom case, though I'd have to look to be sure), that foul language is not, in and of itself, a violation of WP:CIVIL. In fact, it was established that even using words that are banned from public use in many countries (think of the "normal" "four-letter words") is not inherently a violation of WP:CIVIL. It has to do a lot with perception and context. Again, I'm sorry that the term offends you, but it does not offend a large portion of our editors, and it wasn't directed at an individual person. If you think I'm wrong, and you want to argue that MezzoMezzo has violated WP:CIVIL, the place to do that would be WP:ANI. In fairness, though, please note that all editors' behavior (including your own) will be scrutinized. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - I might just do that. I'm very happy to be scrutinised. I know we're all volunteers but I guess integrity, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, openness and honesty must be the key principles for our "community of editors". At least, these are the principles that should be encouraged. Otherwise, people would lose trust and confidence in Wikipedia (which are the only foundations that Wikipedia is built upon). Loss of trust and confidence would make Wikipedia a joke and our "community of editors" a bunch of clowns without morals and principles.EcoMaster 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Dr Waqar Azmi OBE.jpg


The file File:Dr Waqar Azmi OBE.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Small, thumbnail size, low res, no metadata. Unlikely to be own work."

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 03:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)