Mohd.maaz864

Welcome!

Hi Mohd.maaz864! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mohd.maaz864. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

also

is there any reason why you're peppering all of your talk page replies with trademark symbols? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course, there is! Just like there must be a reason why you took interest SPECIFICALLY in that. So before I can formulate my to-the-point answer: Pray tell, may you kindly specify at first? –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Noting that your reply fails to assume good faith. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What's that? A prejudicial assumption, or are you psychoanalysing me, from a single reply? The said 'Wikipedian'( "@ViperSnake151") with resembling-hierarchy( WP:UAL) from Your Highness is clearly a WP:JAGUAR, and so am I. So.. We do have a history. Is it owing to Credential Inflation that you had no choice but to take this “note”? What's the purpose of your “note”, exactly? Particularly when your independent interpretation of WP:GF applies explicitly to the talk-pages as well, whereas the actual text doesn't. May you bother to specify the same exhaustively? —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Note: Fixed the "mentioning" template, line-placement of my reply and the typo on titling Wikipedia®'s of relevant coverage on a pertinent sociological topic. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Boilerplate-warning noted! Regards. I will try my Best in any given situation, to remain cognisant[ to the Best of my[ concomitant] abilities]. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ditto, as earlier! And I dunno whether you would bother to pay attention or think it through, whilst I would love to vehemently oppose the policy of "Discretionary" Sanctions given it goes straight to the many offline-universe Philosophical principles such as Free Will, Equity by Merit or Free Thinking, what-have-you and so on — as propagated to most of the Civilised Humans through the Occidental[ly-inspired] education-systems. But Thanks to the informed personal philosophies of my own, I do understand fully well that no lingual version of Wikipedia® is supposed to be neutral in tone( neutrality doesn't exist!), unbiased in its treatment of subjects( interchangeable-word/synonym to the preceding), with utmost reliance on what socially-"reliable" sources are telling and establishing some semblance of balance thereon. Masses are dumbfucks, and hence as much as I would ideally love to hate such policies to bits — I couldn't agree more.( Contingent on: 'Wikipedians' with greater WP:UAL not having confidence of a bureaucrat/politician pushing papers( "approving license applications") and judging every single case independently of the other, even if it appears eerily-similar to a previous one and above all, taking the initiative of discharging their duties ONLY AND ONLY when in an ideal frame-of-mind to perform such tasks — rest of the time better be spent in WP:HOLIDAY than the short-lived kicks of exerting power( propelled by ids found in each one of us) over the "subordinates". After all, “discretion” can only be exercised Best when the jury-less judge is at their best intellectual-capabilities.) —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Note: Fixed the "auto-incorrect" typo and the missed punctuation at the end( specifically: closing-parenthesis). —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Media Research Center

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Favoring the science of climate change" doesn't seem to make sense... science facts can be reviewed and assessed and sometimes rejected, but favoritism? As CBC's Fifth Estate called it, MRC is "spreading the gospel of liberal bias" (that is similar to a conspiracy theory: understanding that climate change happens and why, doesn't mean you must be a liberal, except if all non-denialists effectively were and that for some reason not rejecting fair consensus would be a "mainstream media bias problem")... —PaleoNeonate – 15:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

May I please urge you to post that there, instead?( Assuming you're willing to engage me in this dialogue, at first place.) 'Case, you wonder: "Why" has already been answered in the introductory-message over there*, other than the very basic premise of this conversation having to do with that article only, prima-facie.

H/T: If by any chance, you haven't read my 'edit-descripts' very, very, very carefully to process sufficiently, I urge you to process them and hopefully, revise your input accordingly than simply copy-pasting the text of this reply.( Not insinuating that there would be something "undesirable" in that. After all, it's myself who's asking you to do that.)

*Perhaps not in the crystal-clear phraseology, in retrospect.( I pre-emptively concede.) —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. I can tell you're doing your best to contribute and that you're pretty frustrated by the way things work here. I want to help you succeed here, so I have a few pointers:

• State your position and then your reasoning. Posts like yours at Talk:Al_Jazeera could be much more effective if you started with something like "The sentence An example sentence here should be removed because the source that supports it is not reliable in this context and because it does not present a neutral point of view." and then gave your reasoning afterwards.
  • Similarly, posts like Just a reminder-'buzz' — presuming you're not receiving timely notices( read notifications).( Totally try to ignore this: Guess I've to extend my wait for a week further.. Ahh! Damn superstition!)[1] are almost impossible to parse.
• Avoid the use of trademark symbols in prose; see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#General_rules (Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context.). It can get really annoying in talk page posts; they aren't legally required and they look like marketing, which can be very irritating for Wikipedians.
• If you find yourself becoming frustrated, disengage. If you let yourself get visibly frustrated, you lose credibility.
• After posting on a talk page, if you find yourself in a dispute with other editors that you would like to resolve, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for further steps.
• Many editors get annoyed with "drive-by tagging". It is often best to fix the problem if you can, and explain your position on the talk page if necessary.
• Try not to use as much bold, especially in large blocks. It puts people off and doesn't help you make your point better. Instead, make every sentence clear and keep things short if possible.
• Please try not to overlink policies and Wikipedia-space pages.
• Edit summaries like Fffuuuuuucccck! Editing from flashy, bare-bones "Wikipedia Lite" interface is so tedious. For anybody concerned, please ref to the Edit Note.[2] can reduce your credibility greatly.
• You use a lot of brackets in your talk page messages. I don't understand any of them, and it reduces comprehension.
• Administrators are not "higher" users than others, and it's almost insulting if you intentionally make remarks referring to them as e.g. Your Highness. That said, experienced users (including administrators) often provide very good advice, especially about the things that aren't explicitly covered in policy.
• I've included more links to available information at the top of the page in the "welcome" section. I suggest looking through that, which may be helpful.

Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted! I seem to already know quite a few of them. But Thanks for your niceties, anyways. No, genuinely so. Will seek further-clarification later on, at a sufficient time-allowance. Meanwhile.. Since you sound to be somewhat aware of the editing-activity going over there already, I've replied to your message. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

HBO Max

About your last edit, i'm sorry for reverting that. I thought it was unconstructive, but it's not. It was an accident. I din't had time to review your edit because i was busy. Thanks for asking. PedroLucasDBr (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, "dear". I'm pleasantly surprised that you didn't engage in edit-war nor take offense at my inspired, frank-but-civil wording[ in the limited-space of] edit-summaries. In fact, edit count wise — you must be one of the rarest of the rare senior editor who either hasn't made snap-judgements about my conduct, or worse — found countering their aggression worst and have responded with even more aggression, without a shred of apparent regret. I dunno if you are even spiritual or not, let alone a man of faith but I humbly wish all of the deserving happiness in your life. Āmēn, Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mohd.maaz864. Thank you. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)