User talk:Taffazull

WP:AGF, edit/reversion wars, and moves to article talk pages (in reference to Sheikh Abdullah)

Dear Taffazull: I wanted, first of all, to welcome you to wikipedia. Second, I wanted to point you to a policy that's important around here, called assume good faith. That policy is one of the cornerstones of our project, as a collaborative encyclopedia where many users may have different visions for an article. What it boils down to is this: Don't assume or accuse another editor of vandalism, making disruptive edits, or other bad-faith actions, unless it's absolutely clear that's what's going on. Your edit summary here rather abruptly accuses me of vandalism for moving a disputed block of text to the article's talk page, along with my placing comments on the matter and my justification for moving the text on the talk page. Moving disputed text, involved in a revert war, to the article's talk page is never vandalism. Furthermore, in doing this, I was acting as a neutral third party. A third opinion had been requested about the article, via WP:3O, and I chose to provide one. One thing I saw was that there had been multiple reversions where the quote was removed and readded several times. As reversion and/or edit wars rarely help to resolve a dispute, and serve to keep an article in limbo while they're going on, I decided to help smooth out the debate by placing the quote on the article's talk page. This is a common, and productive, response to editing disputes about a particular block of text. You said a reason for having the quote had been provided. It must have been in a edit summary, because there wasn't one on the talk page. Moving the text to talk page gives everyone a chance to discuss the text, rather than just keep reverting each other. You should have stated your reasons for having the text there, just as I stated my opinion on the dispute there. Reverting my move of the text simply served to risk continuing the edit war. Calling the removal vandalism, and reverting it as such, only makes it all the worse, because you didn't assume good faith. I'd just ask you to keep that in mind in the future. Luckily, rather than a continuation of the revert war, Alexis49, decided to make a compromise. In seeing the third opinions I and others offered, Alexis49 decided to integrate the quote into the article, something all sides could live with. So, at the end of the day, the dispute was resolved. It just never helps to accuse others of vandalism during an edit war, and especially not neutral third parties trying to help. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is very valid and I thank you for your concern.I am really sorry that there has been a misunderstanding scribe (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:A_Grave_in_the_cemetry.JPEG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:A_Grave_in_the_cemetry.JPEG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:A Grave in the cemetry.JPEG

Image:A Grave in the cemetry.JPEG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:A Grave in the cemetry.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:A Grave in the cemetry.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SILK FACTORY WORKERS AGITATION may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

for your long life and prosperity”'''<ref>Jammu and Kashmir Archives(1920) File No.26 of 1920).</ref>
of India,Home Department,Political,1924,File No:25,Fortnightly Report for Second half of August)</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SILK FACTORY WORKERS AGITATION may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]