User talk:Javaidiqbal6022

Welcome!

Hello, Javaidiqbal6022, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Mecca or Makkah

Right now the consensus is to use Mecca, see Talk:Mecca. If you don't agree with the consensus then please visit Talk:Mecca and make your points there. I would also point out that changing http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/holy-water-mecca-marketed-illegally-uk-131396 to http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/holy-water-makkah-marketed-illegally-uk-131396 breaks the link and there is a big difference between Category:Mecca and Category:Makkah. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in posting that information to my talk page as I don't control consensus. You need to post to Talk:Mecca. Also I am not concerned which word is used for the city but just follow consensus as discussed by various editors. By the way usage on the Internet is just used as a guide and not the ultimate decision as to the usage. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please let me know what the consensus is mean here? And who make consensus? I am sure consensus will be with some reason. As I saw I changed the spell twice and you changed it back, and now you are saying you have no authority to change. Can you please tell in which capacity you are reverting my changes for which I have provided many references.

As you stated that you have no concern which spell being used, I don't have too. But only my concern is that Mecca (which have controversial meaning) shouldn't be used. Also if possible please let me know the steps, how I can proceed for this change. Javaidiqbal6022 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is explained at Wikipedia:Consensus. Basically it is what a group of editors have decided upon after discussing the matter. I can change the spelling of the name because the consensus after discussion was to use Mecca. If another discussion was held and the consensus was to use Makkah then I would follow that instead. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly simple. This is English Wikipedia, and we use the titles that are normally understood by English speaking people. What words are used in another language and how they are used in those languages is irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of talk page

At the very top of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard there is a notice saying "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page." Below it there is another one which says, in very large letters, "This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues." The section you started there was not about discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page, so it has been removed. However, if you want to see what was written there before removal, you can see it here. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now discovered that you have also posted the same material to various other places, including Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and several user talk pages. There are several problems here:

Once again, your post is not about improvements to the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, so it does not belong on the talk page associated with that page.
It is nothing at all to do with conflict of interest.
Persistently posting the same material to numerous places in the hope that you will get the response you want in one or another of them (known as forum shopping) is considered disruptive.
I don't know how you selected the users to whose talk pages you posted, but if they are not involved in discussions on the question then arbitrarily choosing a string of editors to try to drag into the issue could be regarded as harassment or disruption. If, on the other hand, they are involved in such discussions then they can continue to take part in such discussions in one central place, and fragmenting discussion onto numerous different talk pages is not helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]