User talk:Mossad3



Hello, Mossad3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you need to know what is a "contentious issue", which needs a normal and proper discussion, and refrain from making WP:edit requests for them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC
I reverted your edit at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment because the talk page is not the place for you to ask us to create requests for you. Please follow the directions at WP:RFCOPEN. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Framing a RfC
I have reframed two of your RfC posers at Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician) and Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy per WP:RFCBRIEF. Now, reframe your question and relaunch the RfC at Talk:The Kashmir Files. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have done my best but please let me know how to further improve the RfC at Talk:The Kashmir Files if it needs improvement.-Mossad3 (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I should also note that you have completely ignored WP:RFCBEFORE when you read the instructions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

When to withdraw RfC
WP:RFCEND 1 says ".. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly ).  In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the  template. .."

At times withdrawing RfC and conducting more research and more discussion before concluding RfCs can be a smarter choice than loosing RfC in haste which anyways does not benefit your own cause. From my experience for newcomers it is better to observe how discussions and RfCs work then participate in RfCs and there after create RfCs.

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

response
I didn't think I was supposed to say anything. I would agree restoring the RfC was correct after you reworded it. my response to about it being bureaucratic still stands, and I would additionally point out that his comments on RfC before also seem incorrect. the issue was already discussed at no resolution was reached in a previous section, and an RfC was appropriate at that point. nothing prevents new editors from raising new arguments during the RfC, I'm not sure where Kautilya3 is getting that from. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 15:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent on the issue, seemed like a cosmetic change mostly. the arguments against inclusion aren't convincing though, I might !vote later. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 15:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, you're free to ask for any explanation of my actions or inaction. No need to hesitate. On the !vote question specifically, since I was already on the page, asking for a formal support or oppose shouldn't count as canvassing I think. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 15:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Child marriage in Pakistan
If I see any more edits of such dubious quality, you will be explaining yourself at WP:AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)