Jump to content

User talk:MezzoMezzo/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Salam

As salam o alekum wa rehmatullahe wa barkarthu. i am just here to have a word with you. You have been here on wikipedia for a long time, i am very new here. i had just uploaded my first article and everybody pounced on the article. You might have experienced the feeling. Just see how many times my article was deleted again and again. On their official website they had put up a link to nominate this article for deletion. i am not an editor like you are but i just wanted to put up a decent article based on factual information. i think i might have hurt somebody , but i didn't mean to. i didn't even think there would be a fight over it. i am still learning posting in wikipedia, for during all this deleting and reverting nobody told me the flaws in the article. so when You pointed it out to me i rectified it and if You tell me i will further improve it. i am still at a loss as to how to make the article neutral. because all that i have mentioned is the truth as of date and i have used the best words to my ability to describe it. i have more, much more information about this topic but it would not fit the Wikipedia criteria. further more this article is about a sect that is kept as a secret, so how is it possible to get references about it. So the references i have placed from newspapers, though on another topic but my intention was to focus on the mention of Qutbi Bohra and not the article in question. Because Qutbi Bohra is not connected to the succession issue that i will prove it to you when this link goes live. i am in the process of writing my second article, that will make it clear that Qutbi Bohra is not connected to the succession issue. merging the article for just the newspaper information will not make any sense as i have used these reference to prove the exsistence of Qutbi Bohra and not for the content of the said articles.You can say that i have been forced to write my second article just to prove that Qutbi Bohra is not connected to the succession issue or for that matter with Dawoodi Bohra sect. i am just getting my second article ready to be published on wikipedia according to the terms of wikipedia. i have made the necessary changes as mentioned by you in Qutbi Bohra article. i request you to please not consider it for deletion before reading the second article. Furthermore i would like to state again that i would not have written the second article if the difference between Qutbi Bohra and succession issue was not so ambigious. and trust me all these people who were deleting my article again and again know what i am going to say in the second article because they are going to do what i am going to write. for a person new to this issue it may feel strange. But for the people who have planned it and are executing it is just a money game to bend religion according to their wishes. i am sorry i am telling you all this, but once you read my second article you too will have strong feelings towards all this that is happening. Shukran. i took too much of your time. i apologise. take care and thank you very much for your valuable time.

note: i hope i have written this explaination on the right side of the talk page, where you can see it. if not i am sorry this is my first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araz5152 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak!!

Greetings....
Salam! How are you? And how had your Eid been? Hope you were completely fine and had a really splendid Eid... Please accept my greetings too! The Moon has been sighted here, too and we will be celebrating Eid tomorrow, In sha Allah... —Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 17:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings from me too! May you live happily for ever. Faizan 17:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, happy Eid to you guys too. Sorry, I saw this soon after you both commented but I said "let me reply to them later" and forgot about it. Look forward to seeing you two graduate some day soon. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all! Better late than never... And yeah, but you will have to still wait a lot before we can call ourselves ‘graduates’. Anyways, I will wish you again on the eve of ‘the Greater Eid’ in sha Allah. Till then, please pray for our good academic results...—Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 12:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for translation

Good day,

since you are apparently willing to translate Arabic texts for hapless Wikipedians I thought I'd ask, if you would help me out. It's not a lot, just a couple of words, so here we go:

الدعدع
The above is a name, and I need the English transcription for it. (Full name was: امين على امين الدعدع)
بطلقتات
The above was used in the following: اثر اصابته بطلقتات ناريه بالصدر
بالرقيه
The word was used in the following context: اثر اصابته بطلقات ناريه بالرقيه والصدر

Thanks in advance. (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC))

Oh, that's the last name of one of those shooting victims. I saw that. Well, there's a letter in there we don't have in English, Ayin, and it's like a vowel sound but comes deeper down in the back of the throat. The word is roughly pronounced da'da' where the apostrophes are are the Arabic letter ayn. Keep in mind, though, that the victim is Egyptian and Egyptians have notoriously weird pronunciations when they use standard Arabic words, so it could end up being something more like de'a de'a, and considering the victims seem to have been villagers/small town folk, the English spelling (all Egyptian citizens have their names in both Arabic and English in their passports) could have been completely wrong in terms of phonetics. I would suggest the spelling Al-Daedae as excessive apostrophes in the name might seem strange to native speakers of English, though I guess Al-De'de' would be the closest to Egyptian pronunciation if you prefer using apostrophes for the letter ayn. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I see. Well, I'll try to find out how transcription of that letter is generally handled here on Wikipedia, maybe there's a guideline or something, and then decide what version to use. Any suggestions on the other two words? (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC))
Oh, I completely ignored the other words. Both of them are misspelled though. بطلقتات means "by gunshot wounds" and رقيه means "sensitive" and could likely be a euphemism for the victim being shot below the belt, though it would be better to see that written in more than one source before writing it that way. As for guidelines then there might not be - the problem is that Arabic speakers themselves will spell their names differently with Latin letters depending on whether their nation was colonized by Britain or France. I will see if I can find some sort of a guideline too. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Message

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq

Assalamu alaykum, I hope you are well. Any chance you could look at this page: Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq ? One editor seems intent on making it into a fan page and adding unreferenced, or poorly referenced, material. My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:GorgeCustersSabre, I sure will. I'm seeing a number of violations of WP:IRS already. If the user in question is motivated, perhaps some education on basic site policies and guidelines can help them to fine tune their editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Waris Ali Shah

Hi, I saw your deletion template on the article Waris Ali Shah, since you put it there I had done some additions based on RS and think that the deletion template should be removed. Please have a look on the article and if you agree with me then we can have deletion template removed from there. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 22:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Faizhaider, the work you did on that article is stupendous and just the sort of sourcing work needed; prior to that, I really didn't think the subject was notable or that some of the material on there was true. Good job, and I removed the template. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kitab al-'Ayn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Princeton and Velum
Sibawayh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Morphology
Ḍād (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Molar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

AfD discussions

I'm a little concerned that all of your recent AfD nominations appear to be for topics with connections to the Barelvi movement. Is there any particular reason for this, or is it just coincidence? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Phil Bridger, thanks for expressing your concerns here; they're valid and I do value the feedback on my editing. There is a reason but it isn't related to the movement itself; it's related to the user behind the specific articles I nominated. The shortest way I could put it is that during Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msoamu/Archive, it was found that several users who have edit-warred on Barelvi related articles for six years were the same person the whole time, as they later confessed. This was all revealed about four and a half months ago. Another month and a half ago while bored and Wikisurfing via my own talk page archives, I realized that one of the sockpuppet accounts had created a fake portal linking to fake articles. The portal is still there as I don't quite know how to handle it, but I looked at articles the various socks had created during the blocks of the main account.
A great deal of what they created was so obviously non-notable and solely intended to create online buzz, that some of it was prodded or even speedily deleted (I was the nom for said deletions). Anything about which I suspected was non-notable due to the antics I've seen from these accounts for the past six years, I nominated for AfD as suspicion alone isn't grounds for speedy or prod; a community-wide discussion for that would be required. Anything that was clearly notable, and I simply cut out all the peacock terms and ridiculous POV pushing.
I am assuming that since you did take the time to contact me personally, my recent editing must be a cause of concern for others. Please look over what I read here, and if you feel any of the recent nominations were baseless or incorrect in some other way then voicing such concerns could help me to adjust any problematic behavior on my part. Don't worry, I have thick skin and I don't get offended by criticism. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I no longer have any concerns. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Muawiyah I

Yesterday I said to Adjwilley:

We spent a year going through the Muawiya I article and collecting the information and going through hundreds of books. The Muawiya I article is related to the "First Fitna" article and the "Battle of the Camel" articles. We spent a lot of time on it. I put some of the background information on the "First Fitna" article and the "Battle of the Camel" article but Zabranos removed it. I don't have the time to edit war and don't want to edit war. I have a busy work schedule and already spend a lot of time in the evenings going through hundreds of books collecting information. Adjwilley if you have some time, can you please review every things. Adjwilley, since you are the admin, I don't mind what decision you make or what changes you make. We just need to make sure that the articles are accurate, neutral and not offensive to anyone. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

He replied:

You might be interested to know that User:Zabranos was blocked today for abusing multiple accounts. (See here for details.) It looks like they were blocked for a week, so things should calm down a bit on that front. I'll have a look at the articles tomorrow, though I'll warn you, this isn't my area of expertise. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the positive attitude

Pass a Method talk 11:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for help in Muhammad Abduh page

Thanks--Ashashyou (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your envigilation, actually. The site really needs more people willing to watch biography articles on Middle Eastern people. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Bin Baz page naming

I see you have commented on this issue before, and I have opened a new discussion about how to resolve the fact that the page name and the name in the article do not agree with each other. I encourage you to add your voice. --Jprg1966 (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Commented. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Interest

This discussion may interest you. Pass a Method talk 09:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


Watch list

Please could you add List of casualties in Hussain's army at the Battle of Karbala to your watch list. There is an editor who keeps deleting mention that Hussain ibn Ali's father was 4th Caliph. The editor gives different explanations for the deletion. You may wish to express an opinion on the subject on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Assalamu Alaikum

Please help these articles Template talk:First Fitna and Talk:Riyadh As-Saaliheen. Thank you. Ibensis (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe this is a template but linked into wrong wikidata. It linked to non template page in other wikipedia language. secondly, Can you help me make an infobox template about arabic name that contain:
  • <{infobox arabic name
  • | Name = Muhammad
  • | Nasab = bin Umar bin Utsman
  • | Kunya = Abu Bakr
  • | Nisbah = Ash-Shabuni (soapman), As-Saghir (litle)

or better if you may insert those (Name, Nasab, Kunya anda Nisbah) into infobox muslim scolar. Sorry for bad english.Ibensis (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


Also, please help these articles, all related with Salat : Salat , Rakat , Witr , Tarawih , Wudu , Adhan - Verycuriousboy (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

I was wondering whether you thought such removals were appropriate: [1], [2], [3], or how about hierarchichal orders such as this ? Pass a Method talk 20:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, hi, just FYI the above edit has been linked in a discussion at ANI. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Pass a Method, I have only taken a cursory glance but my first reaction is that the removing editor's edit summary mentions something about talk page discussions. If there is a discussion going on about the issue, my advice is always that all parties involved should stop editing, even if they feel that the article is in a poor state, and finish the discussion first; if there is some policy violation in the article, leaving it up for a few days while the matter is sorted out won't kill anybody. This is just my first impression, so take this with a few grains of salt.
User:In ictu oculi, I have not yet read the ANI discussion. I will take a look at it now.
By the way guys, by writing your user names are you getting notifications that I mentioned you? Or do I need to type that weird symbol with colons and the Internet "at" symbol? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes thanks it works, unless you've turned page notifications of on preferences, :) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Religion

Hi MezzoMezzo. As one of the main contributors to the Islam-related pages, I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the Religion in Somalia article to confirm the Pew Research Forum's figures for the various religions practiced therein. According to it, the country is 99.8% Muslim, with the remaining 0.2% of the population adhering to other belief systems. Islam is also the state religion. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And have a look at talk page, there's some issue with the Irreligion in Somalia, in my opinion a notable section, although Middayexpress did a good job. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
According to the Pew Research Forum, less than 0.1% of Somalia's population in 2010 were adherents of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or unaffiliated with any religion [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Middayexpress and User:Bladesmulti, I will take a look at it right now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, good luck. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

A month ago you expressed the view that a returning editor who was editing as an IP-editor was probably a sockpuppet of a blocked editor.[5] You said that you had "notified the admin who blocked the first IP," and that you were "hoping they will agree to reblock as an executive decision but if not I am ready to put together a formall sockpuppet investigation." I have not heard anything since then. The IP editor got him/herself a new account and continues to edit the same page and its talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Toddy1, when I brought it up to the admin a few legitimate reasons were listed as to why nothing could be done, among them the fact that the IP address could not be punished retroactively for the socking as it would be punitive rather than to simply stop the socking (which had stopped on its own). I will take a look at the relevant articles now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, something literally just came up in real life. I have to log off now but could you link me to the problem areas? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
In November, we both expressed concern that an IP editor who was editing the article on the Salafi movement was a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. You can see part of the discussion at User talk:Toddy1/Archive 2#Returning editor. I wondered whether it was User:Shabiha/User:Msoamu. You thought that he she might be User:Baboon43. The suspected editor has used the following:

16 November 2013

14 November 2013

13 November 2013

12 November 2013

(talk)

24 November 2013

23 November 2013

20 November 2013

19 November 2013

18 November 2013

(talk)

29 January 2016

24 December 2015

19 December 2015

4 November 2015

3 November 2015

2 November 2015

1 November 2015

31 October 2015

30 October 2015

User:RookTaker (talk)

24 November 2013

User:BobbyDavro1 (account creation and self-identification only)
At the time he/she created the BobbyDavro1 and RookTaker IDs, he/she made it clear that 86.163.52.147, RookTaker and BobbyDavro1 were the same person.[6]
Do you still believe that this editor is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor?
If you are an EXPERT on these topics, you have to sit down and separate topics like Salafi, Salafi Theology, Wahhabi and salafiyya.. They are all different concepts. HAA, perhaps you see everybody as salafi like yourself..that one is a different story you can write that inside Salafi as well

68.100.166.227 (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In any case, please can you review his/her proposals on Talk:Salafi movement.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You might also suspect

3 January 2014

29 December 2013

to be a sock.  Vizier loki in his/her one and only edit to Wikipedia cites a wikipedia policy complete with wikilink.[7]--Toddy1 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I just logged on, let me see if I can take a detailed look now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Toddy1, I reviewed the discussion and RookTaker is the same as the previously blocked IP address (block log here). However, I don't think it's an issue because that block was only a temporary one for a minor infraction. As far as I can tell, RookTaker has been abiding by site policies and guidelines as well as any other new editor still learning the ropes. Now, because the user once edited anonymously and was blocked, does that need to be noted on their page by some admin? I'm not sure but I doubt it. The best thing to do is to remember all this info you have here on my talk page - it will be archived but never deleted - and simply hope that RookTaker has seen the light and it never needs to be brought up again.
Now regarding my comments on specific proposals mentioned on that talk page, then it will take some more time as you both have a detailed discussion going on. I need to look at it more before providing some feedback on where the article should be headed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Muslim Students Organization of India MSO

Hello MezzoMezzo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Muslim Students Organization of India MSO, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will take a closer look when considering speedy next time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Muslim Students Organization of India MSO for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muslim Students Organization of India MSO is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Students Organization of India MSO until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You might want to keep an eye on

12 August 2015

7 May 2015

9 April 2015

8 April 2015

31 March 2015

20 March 2015

14 February 2015

21 January 2015

6 December 2014

28 November 2014

21 October 2014

12 August 2014

10 June 2014

5 June 2014

2 June 2014

22 May 2014

9 May 2014

5 May 2014

25 April 2014

17 April 2014

11 March 2014

24 February 2014

28 January 2014

8 January 2014

7 January 2014

27 December 2013

12 December 2013

21 October 2013

10 October 2013

23 March 2013

19 March 2013

15 November 2012

20 September 2012

9 August 2012

18 July 2012

, who made this edit putting the obscure student organisation top of the list on MSO. It has since been deleted as non-notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the IP is a proxy-server.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Fyi

Hi MezzoMezzo. There's a user on the Somali people page who has claimed that Somalis are "predominantly Sunni Muslim, with a christian minority and an unknown number of agnostics and atheists", and added these other religions to the infobox alongside Islam. He has attributed this statement to Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi, who actually indicates that ethnic Somalis are pretty much all Muslim, and that "Somali identity is intertwined with Islam" [8]. The user has also tried to add an image of Hirsi Ali to a section of the page reserved for everyday Somalis. I've explained to him that she is a controversial, disliked figure, and that other controversial figures were omitted as well, as per convention on other pages (e.g. at Syrian people). As a knowledgeable contributor to the religion topics, would you mind taking a look? Best, Middayexpress (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress, that's a classic case of edit warring but the guy might not be aware of it. I will mention it at the noticeboard either way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thx for Sunni Students'

Thanks for fixing it up. I've been really busy as of late. I didn't realize the user involved was being problematic. The article should stand as a stub, notable subject, just bad execution at the moment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Content on Shafi'i's al-Risala

Since you are officially the only person I have ever had contact with on Wikipedia (you thanked me for some tweaks I made to the Shafi'i article), I figured I'd start here and see where I land. On the talk page of Al-Risala (book) I indicated I was beginning to write up some notes on my reading of Shafi'i's Risala (in the Khadduri translation). I've been adding them to my sandbox in the meantime. Would you mind either: (1) glancing at them yourself or (2) directing me to someone else I should be talking to about it? I'm wondering if I should continue doing this at all, if this kind of note-taking and/or level of detail is appropriate for Wikipedia or what. I'm making the notes for myself, of course, but figured I'd share. Why not? Dmvjjvmd (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Dmvjjvmd, I just took a look and while it is written quite thoroughly, it will eventually need input from more reviewers than just one. What you're doing now is similar to what has already been written about other classical religious/philosophical works here on Wikipedia, I'm struggling to remember other detailed articles like that off the top of my head but The Republic (Plato) comes to mind. I also created an article about the first dictionary of the Arabic language, Kitab al-'Ayn, which isn't as detailed as what you're doing but it's another example.
Overall I think you're going in the right direction currently, any trimming of the edges and cleaning up can be handled once it's ready to be published in main article space. Though if you don't mind other people editing your sandbox, you could extend the invitation on the relevant Wiki projects and see how others feel about that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:MezzoMezzo, thanks so much for taking a look! I just wasn't sure if what I was doing was even appropriate for Wikipedia, which is why I asked. But Shafi'i's Risala is such an important work in the history of fiqh, it seemed possible. For now, I was just trying to gauge if it was something I should continue to put up here, as opposed to leaving in my own personal notes in a word proc. doc. I completely agree, it'll need editing and further review later on, especially as I haven't edited any of it, just drafted. I was just switching the Qur'an citations to the Cite quran template and noticed a couple of sentences that struck me as coming off entirely the wrong way from what I meant to convey. Yikes! But in general, as the first go-round, I'm just trying to note down the main lines of Shafi'i's argument(s), his scriptural evidentiary support, and anything particularly noteworthy or interesting (like that quote at the end of the introduction about patience in learning). Anyway, again, I really appreciate your responsiveness! And happy new year! Dmvjjvmd (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot question

Do you have any idea why the Wiki v. 1.0 assessment bot is basically reassessing the same three or four articles every day, and nothing else? See here to see what I mean. Technology: confusing to a humanities nerd like me. :P Dmvjjvmd (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Dmvjjvmd, I'm the last guy to ask about technical stuff. There are common areas for questions, though. Wikipedia:Help desk is often the best place to start, I use it myself sometimes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo, thanks, that should help me to stop nagging you about, well, everything. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmvjjvmd (talk • contribs) 20:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sunni Islam question

Hello MezzMezzo I removed it because I thought the sources were rather unreliable: a children's book and a murder mystery. Perhaps you could quote some more reliable academic or statistical sources. Thanks. Erasmus1536


January 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm MezzoMezzo. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sunni Islam without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi MezzMezzo- Sorry for not adding a note that was a mistake I had forgot to add something. Reason for the change is that it is an un-substantiated comment without any specific estimates. Currently there are no reliable estimates for the current Sunni population therefore it cannot accurately be described as being the largest single religious denomination. For example estimates range from between 70%-90% of world Islam adherents which again depending on estimate's of population it can range from 1.12 billion to 1.4 billion. At 1.12 it would not be the largest denomination as that would be Roman Catholic at roughly 1.22 billion. At 1.4 billion it definitely would be however I believe that unless there is a qualified number this claim should not and cannot be accurately made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.85.45 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. :) I saw on AN/I that you considered the F.Tromble issue solved with my outside mediation and explanation. I'm glad to hear so, as I believe that although some of his behaviour was problematic, he did and does intend to be a constructive contributor.
I sincerely hope that next time he needs some advice or help, he'll ask me, but should you notice that he's getting into trouble again, please let me know and I'll see if I can't explain to him how to handle things. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:AddWittyNameHere you're right, I think it was a combination of paranoia on my part and (as you pointed out) attempts at lightening up the situation being unclear on the Internet vs. face-to-face. I had a rought start at the beginning, too. I don't expect him to get into trouble after the experience, but we can view this as both of us (as well as others) ready to help him out if he asks. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Titles

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته Please tell me how i could get a discussion about the titles of some articles more open because if I only do it on the article talk page, maybe not as many people would view it. عمر چودھری 08:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Choudhry (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) @Omar Choudhry: wa alaikum al salam First, most of our articles (like Fatima) are already at the right title, so there's no need to move them (to Faatwimah, for example). If there's not enough of an audience at the talk page, you could post a Request for Comment. Other editors would get the notice and respond. You could also raise these issues at the applicable WikiProjects (like WikiProject Islam). Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

on the Oman articles. I found them interesting to research. I hope I did not make too many errors in the names, which I find quite confusing. Thanks again, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at BethNaught's talk page.
Message added 16:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Succession to Muhammad Page

Hi MezzoMezzo I added some content into the Succession to Muhammad page but Kazemita1 keeps on removing it citing copy right violation even though I gave the references and the whole page is already full of quotes from various books. I want to avoid an edit war. I want to improve Wikipedia so that it contains researched scholarly content, that is useful to the readers. This whole article is full of people pushing their opinions. There needs to be a critical analysis of the content on this page. Various books have been written on this issues through out the ages and this content needs to be put into a table so that people could compare what was said when and by whom and why. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sulaym ibn Qays, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hasan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a suggestion . . .

Since the article Names of God in Islam already notes that the names are not all found in the Qur'an and that the sources include both Qur'an and hadith, would you consider re-entering the names you've deleted, including a note in the "Qur'anic Usage" column like "not found in Qur'an" or "Hadith only"? If you're interested in doing so, I would be more than happy to help by tracking down the hadith sources for the names not found in the Qur'an. مع خالص الشكر والتقدير.
--أخوها (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:أخوها: while compromise isn't my middle name, it's still a Wiki virtue to be desired. I am totally down with such a self revert and change and will do my best to help with finding names in hadith only as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Great! I look forward to helping with the research. I'm confident that the end result will be a much enhanced article. Thank you.--أخوها (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For maintaining a cool head in the face of incivility and for seeking advice and assistance from an uninvolved party. We need more Wikipedians like you! — Keithbob • Talk • 22:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ahmed bin Hamad al-Khalili, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muscat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Omar Mukhtar

Hallo MezzoMezzo
a fellow wikipedian changed the religious affiliation of Omar Mukhtar from Ibadi Islam to Sunni Islam, the first time without sources, the second time substituting a Turkish source with one in Arabic. Since my knowledge of arabic is = 0 :-), and I saw that you contributed to the Ibadi Islam article, could you please check that his edit is correct? Many thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Alessandro57, I have to admit I only first read about Omar Mukhtar last week, here on Wikipedia. It's a very odd coincidence that a week later, I'm asked for help on the article! He was an interesting man, but I don't know much about him. I can share some other things with you before I start.
First, we appear to have two Turkish sources saying he was Ibadi. The other user has brought one Arabic source saying he was Sunni. As far as I know, the most correct action would be to include both sources and then state that there is a dispute over his religion, and he wouldn't be the only historical figure whose religion is disputed.
Second, the Arabic source is Dr. Sallabi. I have some of his books. He is a knowledgeable historian but horrible biased. He's a Salafist, and his assessments of history tend to go like this: if the person's or empire's sect wasn't clear and they were known for being just and upright, Sallabi describes them as being unequivocably Salafist in outlook; if they were unjust or tyrants, they must have been something else. If they werely clearly an unjust tyrant, there is no way they could have been Salafist or even traditional Sunni, and if they were just then they could only have been a Sunni of the Salafist brand and nothing else. I'm not saying the source isn't reliable, he is a historian and Wikipedia allows experts in fields to be used as sources even if they're biased. We have tons of examples of that, as WP:NPOV applies to us editors, not the sources. But what I am saying is that maybe further research ought to be done to see what is found in other sources; if there is a dispute, it can be fleshed out.
Searching via Googlebooks could be a first good choice. Since the issue is obviously under dispute, I advise bringing any sources found to the talk page first and asking the other user to collaborate. Chances are they're just trying to get to the bottom of things and find the truth like you, so hopefully they would love to help out with expanding on this. I will try to take a look if I get the time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hallo MezzoMezzo, thanks a lot for your answer! I will look too, but chances that I will find something in sources other than Arabic and Turkish are small...Bye Alex2006 (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Alessandro57, now that I think of it...why not just incorporate all the sources into the article? The Turkish ones saying he was Ibadi, and the Arabic one saying he was Sunni, I mean. Just mention in the infobox that his religion was Islam, then mention in the body of the article - using all three sources - that he has been attributed to both denominations. Do you think that would work? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Ciao MezzoMezzo: if you have a look at the talk page, the Arab user who wrote that Muhktar was a sunni muslim writes that the two turkish sources are respectively a forum and a blog. If it is so, the case is closed, since neither blogs nor forums are considered RS at Wikipedia. So, at the moment, the case is closed. :-) Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

corrections

assalamu alaykum jazakllah khair for your efforts, i do not really how to use wiki and editing however some changes to the page regarding the bio of Shaikh Badi ud din are incorrect and need changing, i can do this myself very poorly but i thought first i must speak to you. my email is abukhuzaimahansaari@hotmail.co.uk. thereafter we can move to the other pages. May Allaah bless you, ameen — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbuKhuzaimahAnsaari (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:AbuKhuzaimahAnsaari, as a rule I do not contact other editors about content on Wikipedia articles; any and all discussions that involve me take place on talk pages where everyone can see it. That's why I don't allow the "email user" option. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Naeemkareem SPI and Nazim Al-Haqqani

Please acquaint yourself with what is and isn't vandalism. Vandalism, as defined on Wikipedia, is an intentional action to harm Wikipedia. That does not include edits that are done to push a particular POV, or that you simply disagree with. Examples of vandalism can be seen here. Note that this edit incorrectly labels what Naeemkareem did as "vandalism", which can be considered a personal attack. Don't be so loose about using that term. You were correct in that it did appear to be pushing a positive POV.

I've also closed your request at SPI for the editor. You didn't provide any examples of sockpuppetry, you just stated that an IP created an account, and then said you wanted a "check" for sockpuppets. CheckUser doesn't go on fishing expeditions to look for sockpuppets when there is no evidence of it, nor do administrators check for sockpuppet behavior without evidence. Just keep this in mind in the future. -- Atama頭 19:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Atama, thanks for coming here directly. I suppose I have misunderstood sockpuppetry as, at the time, I thought I had stumbled upon an instance of it. It might be prudent that I review the relevant policy and avoid filing such a report myself the next few times I suspect it; I can always ask other users what they think of given situations.
I would have to disagree, respectfully, with your assertion that no vandalism occured in the article though. To be precise, this seems as clear an example as one can find. If I'm being accused of personal attacks over this, then to be honest I have a problem with that because of that isn't vandalism then I don't really know how else to define it; it certainly isn't meant to improve the encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the anonymous IP address which edited immediately before - the one I thought was a sock - also vandalized the article; the edit rather clearly demonstrates vandalism in the form of deleting a citation and the text along with it, and my revert did cover that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Atama, if you have the time, could you comment on whether there is something I am still missing here about the vandalism issue? This is still itching at me a bit. I've looked the edits above over multiple times and even reviewed the policy again several times. It still seems like vandalism no matter how I look at it. Some sort of closure would be nice; as you can understand, a critical comment from an administrator can be a cause for concern. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, MezzoMezzo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Faizan 13:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 15:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica1000 15:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification

File:Yes
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This is a non administrator notification, and will be logged as such on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Calypsomusic, I don't get it. What is this all about? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't take it personally - it does not mean I don't find you a valuable editor or that I want to pursue any procedure on the arbitration page. It just seems to be just an (incomplete) list of all editors in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan articles, and unlike DS, I'm not planning to become active on that page. I was asking myself the same question here [9] and will further detail my reply after I get a reply to my question on this to DS. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I have removed you, but I strongly recommend that you add yourself to the list. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Calypsomusic, you're right - I never heard of this before but it seems like a serious thing. I'm going to go read through and familiarize myself with the whole decision by the committee there and then sign myself once I get it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
As of May 4th (before Calypsomusic added the notice) this has been replaced with the one below - I doubt Calypsomusic was aware of this change. There is no list. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

More page moves

by Omar Choudhry (talk · contribs). Brought them up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:Source you added years ago

Salam Alaykum, how are you bro.

Unfortunately, I do not remember it. You can search Google book due to the fact that I used online sources. Some points which may help you to complete this article:

Best.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Nerd has responded

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at Supernerd11's talk page.
Message added 11:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 11:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Our old friends

Salam Alaykum,

Do you remember our old friends in 2008:

  • Aminz
  • BhaiSaab
  • Ibrahimfaisal
  • Itaqallah
  • Kirbytime
  • Palestine48
  • Truth Spreader
  • Wikipidian

and ...

Has any one of them been active yet?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sa.vakilian, talk about a blast from the past...Ibrahim Faisal changed his account name and was gone for years, then suddenly became active a month ago. It would be nice if he stuck around. None of the other old schoolers we knew are active for now, and some of them like BhaiSaab are banned. Interestingly enough, I bumped into one of the above on a discussion forum and realized who they were, then sent a bunch of private messages on that site trying to convince them to come back. I don't think they will. Unfortunately, I guess editing for too long causes a lot of us to get burned out, due to reasons you and I both understand well. God, are we the only ones who were editing in this subject area back then who are still around? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Some of those names sure do ring a bell. Anyway, I saw my old login and decided to give it a whirl. Definitely thinking about coming back now. Would be good to improve some articles again! ITAQALLAH 14:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Itaqallah, this was your first edit in four years. Man we need to have a reunion. First thing that comes to my mind to tell you: guidelines and policies about behavior and unconstructive editing have become a lot deeper and more detailed, in a good way. The level of frustration when editing Wikipedia now is way less than four or five years ago. Dude seriously, get back here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Preoccupied a bit with Ramadan at the moment. But yeah, sounds good I think. ITAQALLAH 15:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Abdul Qayum

Assalamu alaykum dear brother. I hope you are well. I’m bothered by the inadequate evidence repeatedly provided by User:Ermejoso that Abdul Qayum (scholar) has a PhD from the SOAS in London. If you have time, please can you have a look. Thanks, and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Walaikum as salam User:GorgeCustersSabre, that account appears to be banned as it was a sock of some guy called Aldota. Another account banned as a sock of the same person just tried to ping me on their own talk page. I think it has been solved for now and the article should be edit-able, but the guy has been busted for sockpuppetry four times and this time it was for almost two dozen socks. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that he might try to come back soon. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Single source publishing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indexing, Source language and Target language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Structured false flag

Assalamu 3Alaikum, Mezzo-mezzo. I would like to ask you for help. There is an Iranian user, name BoogaLouie who has done many editing with bad intentions and tendentious for a prolonged period and structured manner on articles relating to Sunni and Saudi arabia. Can you monitor it, or fix it. His edit based on source that can not be accountable or books from the opponent. See [15], [16], [17], [18],[19], and many more. Thank You. Allah bless you. 36.73.105.154 (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This is BoogaLouie. I have made quite a few edits on topics involving Wahhabi Mission, religion and politics in Saudi Arabia and related matters recently. While many of the edits are less than flattering to the Kingdom's rulers I think you will find them based on reliable sources and otherwise following wikipedia policies and regulations. (PS, I am not Iranian.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry IP address, I don't take to the "oh brother, dear brother in Islam, support me because we share the same beliefs" thing. If you want my attention, you need to give reasons for disagreeing with edits; posting someone's edits with no explanation isn't sufficient.
And please keep it professional. Booga Louie is a longtime editor in good standing. And although he's not Middle Eastern as far as I know, being Iranian or any other nationality doesn't prevent someone from editing articles about the Middle East. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo, you are unbelievable. You call yourself a sunni muslim, I just say Salam and blessing to you but you complaining. thats just a greeting and GBU. I'm not even call you brother or things whatever you think. I need you help, thats all about. This BoogaLouie guy has a motive. He is Shi'i Iranian movement supporter. Everybody allowed to editing about Middle east, its OK. But an Shi'i Iranian supporter editing Sunni & Arabic articles with only inserting negative paragraph from unreliable source. Its very obvious. Its not Netral. Its something you need too give attention. I know he is a longtime editor. Thats why i said this is a framed, structured, systematic false information. If you dont want to help. Can you ask any other administrator to review Boogalouie edits in Sunni articles.36.81.88.47 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you're on your own. I have edited with the guy cooperatively on articles since at least 2007 and none of what you say about him is true. I'm also going to keep your prejudices and ridiculous assertions in mind if I notice any anonymous IP addresses disrupting articles in the subject area. Please don't contact me again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Abbasid Revolution

Salam Alaykum. Nice attempt. You made an excellent article and I propose to nominate it for GA.

The Barnstar of Iran's Merit of Excellence
I think you really deserve this barnstar for your wonderful attempt in developing Abbasid Revolution article. Seyyed(t-c) 01:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hadith of Mubahalah

Salam Alaykum,

I think deletion of the article is the easiest way to encounter the problem.not the best one. I found several books which may help us to improve it: Tafsir Ibn Kathir and the other Sunni Tafsirs. Best.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

walaikum as salam User:Sa.vakilian, at this time it is a moot point. The article has survived AfD three times, with this last time resulting in a landslide in favor of keeping. I think it is safe to say that the community has determined for good that the article must be kept, and it shouldn't be nominated for deletion again.
If you would like help improving it then I would be happy to oblige, but I need some more time. My old computer finally kicked the bucket and I am editing now on my stupid smartphone, which I hate. In two weeks in sha Allah I will start building my own computer, mainly for gaming but obviously a desktop will make Wikipedia editing much quicker and easier. Until then, all I really have the patience to do is revert vandalism and blanking here and there with the undo function. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

eid mubarak

sorry for the late. EID MUBARAK! I have a request, can you write anything about what is happening in Palestine? Thanks 109.154.0.121 (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not logged in so I'm not sure who you are, but Eid mubarak anyway. I don't generally write articles on current events as that requires editors involved to stay very up to date at odd hours of the day as situations change and to collaborate with a highly active part of the Wikipedia community. My skills tend to push me toward historical articles on events which are long buried in libraries and require less intense commitments of my free time. The talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine should be a good place to meet other editors interested in the topic. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new article

Came across this "... Salafi and Wahhabi are not synonyms, Baboon. That's the point. We've been through this before; ... " from a post by you and had an idea.

Why not make an article along the lines of Distinction between Wahhabism, Salafism and Islamism and putting lots of different definitions from different scholars, clerics, knowledgeable journalists. What do you think? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:BoogaLouie, it sounds like an interesting idea. I'm sure we can find quite a few statements, but I must play devil's advocate for a moment. Won't other editors ask, first and foremost, if mainstream reliable sources have specifically addressed the topic not of Salafism, not of Wahhabism, not of Islamism, but of the similarities/differences between the three? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
hmmmm .... Not sure why that would make an article or at least a section of an article on the differences problematic. I will put something together and show you how it looks, inshallah. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:BoogaLouie, radical, I'm looking forward to it. By the way, have you been pinged when I write the username like that? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been using the wikipedia user "notifications" to follow this. BoogaLouie (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Polandball

Hi, I have recently expanded and rewritten the Polandball article at Draft:Polandball. I have also requested undeletion of the original article (that should never have been deleted in the first place) at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_August_6. I am leaving you this message as you left a message at User_talk:Supernerd11#Polandball_project_team in relation to resurrecting the article. 185.49.15.25 (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I completely forgot about that! I'm glad to see someone took initiative. I'll check things out, because you're right, I can't believe something internationally notable could have been deleted like that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Khidr article

Got another question since you seem to be a sort of senior editor on things Islamic. If you have time could you look at the Khidr article. Somebody (probably Tarasyani. he/she has no user page) seems to have crammed it full of poorly organized/written and (I think) very tangential stuff on Khidr's association with Gilgamesh and other non-Islamic issues. I put some tags on it but do you have any other ideas on how to improve it? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @BoogaLouie:, sorry for the delay as I was on vacation. Anyway...that's a lot of problematic material there. Give me a day or two and I will be in a better position to give my two cents. But upon first glance, the issues you mention are very apparent even without jumping into the details. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Asad Q. Ahmed

Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. I hope you are fine. Sorry to ask, but could you please have a look at the page Asad Q. Ahmed and its talk page. Editor Ashwak786 seems to want to consider this very imperfect page to be perfect and edit-proof. Maybe he's connected to the subject. I don't know. He writes stupid stuff on my user page too. Thanks so much. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey @GorgeCustersSabre:, I am on my mobile right now. Let me try to get to a desktop because this interface is awful for serious editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright, rather than a few minutes it's taken me a few days but I think I have a working computer again. I don't have much time as I just now got this thing up and running, but I promise to take a look tomorrow or after. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

new laptop

Glad to hear you're back --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I could use your help with some vandals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

I corrected the section on Judaism, but there are non-Jews who insist they know better. Can you inject yourself?

Jaim Harlow 20:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation

Hello, Mezzo. I have copied our exchange from my Talk page as it is now archived and thought it would be simpler to deal with on your page. Have you had time to look at the translation yet? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings,

1. I see that I was pinged a few days ago. Are you still in need of assistance or has the time passed?
2. Have you considered starting an archive for your talk page?

All the best. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo: I didn't think I had actually pinged you! I was looking for someone to translate a short Arabic citation for our Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant article, and it is just a case of me finding the time to sort out my query, as things are very hectic there at the moment. I will be in touch. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, MezzoMezzo. I have found that Arabic citation and it is here. If you need some background, we took a question to the WP:RSN here - you only need read the first three paragraphs to put you in the picture.
You will see that citation is in the list we provided for the RSN and that part of it was translated there for the RSN by an editor on the team, Worldedixor, an Arabic-speaker, but clearly his translation will need corroboration. What does it say, please?
Later: Something very curious has happened. I have just called up that citation and miraculously it now has an English Google translation! It did not have one before, hence our problem. Perhaps you would check that the translation there is accurate, please. We may need to quote the translation in the footnote, so if you could put it into good English, that would be appreciated. (Google translations from the Arabic can be a bit hit and miss as we have discovered.) By the way, Daash is another name for the Islamic State/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL), the terrorist group in question. There is no pressure to have the translation back quickly, by the way.
Regards, P123ct1 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
PS In case you are curious, I found your name via the WP:HD here.
Well, that's certainly a welcome coincidence. I'm about to step out in a few minutes, but in the coming days I will attempt to review the translation. The main issue with Google Translate is that it can translate words but not syntax, so sometimes the sentence structures get funny between English and Arabic. I'll try to throw in my two cents soon. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me on this. Can we keep the exchanges on this on your Talk page, please? The discussion on the ISIS Talk page about this is extremely old, going back to the beginning of September, and is now in the archives, but you don't need to see it, as all we need is a translation into good English of the short citation that I gave you. Are there problems? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The first discussion on the subject is here and the second is here. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a reminder that we would like a translation of this very short article, please! I really don't think you will need to look at any of the other sources I gave; they were there just as back-up in case you had a problem with anything. Probably simplest to ask me if you have a query. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Help

Salaam MezzoMezzo, you were great in editing & improving Waqar Azmi page. I'm not an expert like you but just a learner. I've seen your work and really respect and admire you for your fairness and impartiality. Could you please help by looking at Waqar Azmi page. It seems User Akbar Baig is intent on pushing his own agenda without any source. I've messaged on his Talk page but he is not responding. Grateful for your help. (EcoMaster 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecomaster (talk • contribs)

Walaikum as salam @Ecomaster:, the user appears to be using a "source" now but it's Wordpress which isn't allowed; it's self-published, unreliable blogging. He's been reverted for the time being but I will keep an eye out in case the same thing happens again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
As Salam 3alaykouma ya asdiqa2!... I saw what you did, MezzoMezzo. If either one of you ever needed some help in something advanced in Arabic, please let me know!... Worldedixor (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

iERA

Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. I hope you are well. Another editor (RookTaker) and I are feeling a bit frustrated that our efforts to keep the iERA article neutral, balanced and reliable are being thwarted by an anonymous editor who changes his editor name (sometimes to mimic ours) and seems to want to whitewash the article. I don't have an view as to whether iERA is good or bad, but it is a controversial entity. That's not just my opinion. Neutral and reliable sources show that. Hiding the controversial nature of this entity will therefore prevent an accurate account being presented. I'm not out to paint the iERA as despicable. I truly don't have an axe to grind. I don't believe that RookTaker has either. Can you please take a look at the article and the edit history and see what you think? Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Walaikum as salam @GorgeCustersSabre and RookTaker:, sorry for the delay - sometimes I edit constantly for a few straight weeks then just don't have the time to edit at all for a while. It's a few days late but I will take a look and see if I can help improve the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Abbasid revolution

Salam Alaykum, I think this article can be nominated for WP:GA. There are few improvement such as completing the lead which should be done prior to nomination. Best. Seyyed(t-c) 11:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Walaikum as salam @Sa.vakilian:, I'm happy that other people have noticed - I spent more time on that article in particular than almost anything else on here in the past year. Improvements ought to be done by you and others - I did my part, one person's style (mine) is evident on there so having different additions would probably be better for overall quality. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. I will do it. Seyyed(t-c) 07:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, man. I hope things can be improved beyond what I did as well. It's always better to have multiple eyes on good articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Umar Vadillo

Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. I hope life is good. I've nominated the article on Umar Vadillo for deletion. It seems to be one of those poorly sourced pages created by a fan or by someone connected by Vadillo himself. I'd be grateful if you would take a look at the page and share your views at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Walaikum as salam, I will try to take a look soon in sha Allah @GorgeCustersSabre:. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

tawhid

it's wrong to delete what I had written about tawhid. It's Islam. Islamic11111 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Islamic11111:, I really don't care about your personal opinions of religions at all; I care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which your edits clearly violated. I had already began discussion on the primary source issue at Talk:Tawhid over a year ago. You still have yet to explain yourself. Take the issue there and if you revert in order to violate Wikipedia guidelines again, your efforts will backfire on you. Go review WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND while you're at it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"I really don't care about your personal opinions of religions at all" What does this mean? Was that his personal opinion? I don't think so. Let me ask a question. Do you care more about "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" or "Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala"? 31.52.139.225 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear 31.52.139.225, your question to MezzoMezzo is as unhelpful as your edits on the Tawhid page. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Muhammad Arshad ul Qadri

I wanna introduced you Muhammad Arshad ul Qadri. I wrote a small http://afkaremuslim.blogspot.com/2013/04/arshadul-qadri.html of the personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.243.74 (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Al-Waqidi

Hi MezzoMezzo
I am still around. I have just been very busy.
Recently Tom Holland [20] has written some good books on the Roman and the Persian empires. He draws heavily on the Roman sources. In his book "In the shadow of the sword, The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World" he gives a very detailed account about the Muslim Conquest of Syria using Roman and archaeological sources. But then when you read the book "The Islamic Conquest of Syria" by al-Imam al-Waqidi [21] that also gives an almost identical account from Arab sources. Even the names of Roman generals and commanders involved match and the times and dates match. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Junaid Jamshed

Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. I hope life is good. Please can you take a look at the edits on the Junaid Jamshed page, and then at its talk page. One strident editor seems hell-bent on branding him a blasphemer even though no judicial finding has stated that. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't give up :)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364#05_January_2015. Regards, kashmiri TALK 21:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For all your words and actions when dealing with an aggressive sock farm. !شكرا kashmiri TALK 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kashmiri: it was half due to solidarity and half due to a pet peeve of mine. I can't stand seeing troublemakers - sockpuppets, personal attackers, POV pushers - get away with their antics because not enough people are willing to read all the back-and-forth comments and get involved. I've seen good editors quit due to lack of assistance in such situations and it hurts the encyclopedia. Now that the sock farm is out of the way, there is some real AfD work to do. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Lockmaster1 (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Lockmaster1 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salafi movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mohammed Hassan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested

... in this: Articles for deletion/Sultan-ul-Faqr Monthly Magazine. I wonder how many more such "gems" have been spread around the Wikipedia by the group. Regards, kashmiri TALK 10:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AFD again

You might be interested this article is up for deletion again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targeted Individual (2nd nomination)

Seeking your help to translate from English to Arabic

Hello,

Thanks for taking your time off to help hapless Wikipedians and otherwise stucked-up articles find their way to the forefront of other non-English speaking readers. I would hope that I have approached you the right way.

Nonetheless, I humbly seeks your intervention to translate the following pages, since I gathered that it may mean something to Wiki readers in Arabic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Letters_to_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Adonis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwatchergy (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks in anticipation for facilitating this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwatchergy (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MezzoMezzo: Careful, this is a part of "promote-my-book" spam [22] run by a number of suspected socks. kashmiri TALK 16:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Some assistance if you have time.

Hello MezzoMezzo, I moved the page we discussed as best as I could from the wiki link that was posted. I hope the move was satisfactory. Now to the issue for which I am here for; I am currently working on the Ibn Taymiyyah article. The work is going all right, there is a lot to be done but there is one thing I am absolutely stuck on. That being the naming of sections and subsections. The names I have come up with, for some reason do not sound encyclopaedic but that could just be me. Your help in this regard will be gratefully appreciated. If you do have time and have a look, please bear in mind that the work is not yet completed as I am waiting to get my hand on sources and I am only upto when he was 45 years old. Regards. Mbcap (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: what's the problem? As of now, the subject headings and subheadings are explanatory and clear. I see you've been busy on the page history; are the current headings from your efforts or were they previously existing? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
All right, I will leave it as it is then if it is explanatory and clear. Yes I am trying to improve the article. When I started, the biography section had just one heading, which was labelled "Death". As it grew I had to come up with new headings. Mbcap (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Help

Salam Alaykum. Can you please check your mail. Best.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Revertion of Salafi Movement

Hello friend, reason why I edited Salafi movement is provided here Talk:Salafi movement Ejaz92 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Al-Jahiz

Greetings Mr MezzoMezzo :
I only got here by accident . I innocently went to Wikpedia to look for a quote from Al-Jahiz and stumbled on the Talk:Al-Jahiz page. I am gobsmacked at what I found. I realize that lots of people with dishonest intentions meddle in Wikpedia articles and play fast and loose with the truth to promote their own agendas but I naively assumed that an article on someone as obscure to a native English speaker as Al-Jahiz would be safe from that sort of BS . Not only that but that people are attacking each other rather unkindly over differences in such minutiae . I have a book I bought in the 70's with some of his writings in it I was just too lazy to dig it out . At least with a book right or wrong no one can come in in the dead of night and change the information in it. The way forward is dark enough , to intentionally meddle with the past is a great crime , a sin "thou shalt not bear false witness". 
I linked to your page just out of curiosity and I see that your page has been vandalized a dozen times . Jesus , don't people have anything better to do with their time ? 
I also see that on your page you say you are " actually a subject matter expert on topics related to technical writing, technical translation and general topics related to technical documentation." I just want to say that you should never assume any technical knowledge on the part of the users of your translations unless they are meant for specialists . I can't tell you how many times I have thrown a tech manual down in frustration because the writer wasn't specific enough . If I knew that stuff I wouldn't be using a tech manual in the first place .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camel regulars (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Al-Jahiz

 I only got here by accident . I innocently went to Wikpedia to look for a quote from Al-Jahiz and stumbled on the Talk:Al-Jahiz page. I am gobsmacked at what I found. I realize that lots of people with dishonest intentions meddle in Wikpedia articles and play fast and loose with the truth to promote their own agendas but I naively assumed that an article on someone as obscure to a native English speaker as Al-Jahiz would be safe from that sort of BS . Not only that but that people are attacking each other rather unkindly over differences in such minutiae . I have a book I bought in the 70's with some of his writings in it I was just too lazy to dig it out . At least with a book right or wrong no one can come in in the dead of night and change the information in it. The way forward is dark enough , to intentionally meddle with the past is a great crime , a sin "thou shalt not bear false witness".

I only got here by accident . I innocently went to Wikpedia to look for a quote from Al-Jahiz and stumbled on the Talk:Al-Jahiz page. I am gobsmacked at what I found. I realize that lots of people with dishonest intentions meddle in Wikpedia articles and play fast and loose with the truth to promote their own agendas but I naively assumed that an article on someone as obscure to a native English speaker as Al-Jahiz would be safe from that sort of BS . Not only that but that people are attacking each other rather unkindly over differences in such minutiae . I have a book I bought in the 70's with some of his writings in it I was just too lazy to dig it out . At least with a book right or wrong no one can come in in the dead of night and change the information in it. The way forward is dark enough , to intentionally meddle with the past is a great crime , a sin "thou shalt not bear false witness".

I linked to your page just out of curiosity and I see that your page has been vandalized a dozen times . Jesus , don't people have anything better to do with their time ?

I linked to your page just out of curiosity and I see that your page has been vandalized a dozen times . Jesus , don't people have anything better to do with their time ? − I also see that on your page you say you are " actually a subject matter expert on topics related to technical writing, technical translation and general topics related to technical documentation." I just want to say that you should never assume any technical knowledge on the part of the users of your translations unless they are meant for specialists . I can't tell you how many times I have thrown a tech manual down in frustration because the writer wasn't specific enough . If I knew that stuff I wouldn't be using a tech manual in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camel regulars (talk • contribs) 21:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Maliki Barnstar

Thank you so much for the barnstar you gave me for my work on Maliki scholarship. Wa Bi Allahi at Tawfeeq. I pray you are rewarded for your act of kindness. Jaw101ie (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Translation

Salam Alaykum,

What is your suggestion for "بعثت"?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Walaikum as salam, @Sa.vakilian: ba'atha has a lot of different meanings, and like qaddama or qarrara that meaning depends heavily on the context. One could roll off maybe five meanings of the word ba'atha (sent, contacted, caused to rise, emerge) and none of them would be helpful without the full context of the passage in question. It all depends. What I would recommend is paraphrasing instead of metaphrasing. That is, when you translate, don't worry about transferring each individual word to the target language; read the entire passage before typing anything, and then translate the general meaning, even if some fancy words from the source language get cut out. The goal is for the reader of the target language to understand the meaning of the passage, not the translation of every individual word in the source. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This question relates to this discussion. We will be delightful if you participate in it. Best.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Help in translating from arabic

Assalamu alaykum MezzoMezzo,

At the moment I am preparing an article that merges Mid-Sha'ban and Barat Night. In these two articles, I have come across a myriad of translations of the word bara'at as in ليلة البراءة: Night of Records, Night of Assignment, Night of Deliverance, Night of Innocence, Night of Forgiveness, Day(?) of Atonement, Night of Freedom, Night of Salvation. The laylat-part is easy, but could you please shed some light on what you think might be the best translation of bara'at? Thanks! HyperGaruda (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

W/salam @HyperGaruda: one thing to note is that what I, an a single editor, think would be the best translation may not be what should be written in the article. Articles should always contain the most common English rendering in reliable sources per WP:ENGLISH. I personally would translate the term as atonement even though it is not the closest meaning to the original Arabic term out of context, but that is due to my views regarding translation theory; I believe in accurate representation in the target language and the source language isn't so important. Other people might disagree with me. That's one of the reasons why it's better to go with the site guideline and simply check what the majority of English-language reliable sources refer to the night as. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing

Wasila is definition. I read the talk page discussions. If you can take a look at this it might be clearer [23] Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You are very late. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham Central Mosque

Dear MezzoMezzo, can you please look at the recent edit history of Birmingham Central Mosque. It's not nice to be called a religious hypocrite by User:AHLM13 -- again -- merely because I asked for evidence for his addition. Thanks and salam, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre: Sorry, I neglected by editing duties for a while but I'm back. I'm surprised that guy didn't give up and see he has been blocked for a third time while I was gone. I will try to take a look at what's going on but it could take a few days. Don't worry, things always work out when we follow official site rules (which he doesn't seem to be doing if his recent blocking is any indication). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@GorgeCustersSabre: Man, I'm terribly sorry, I got caught up again and wasn't able to log in for a while. It seems the user has been blocked indefinitely; how did that happen? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Invite

A Barnstar!
Please participate
There's a voting going on here. It needs to close, but consensus is not certain. We need more participation. The issues can't remain without a resolution. Please, check it out. Closure of the discussion has started. (refresh) Please, hurry. 78.149.193.255 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Islamic Economics v. Islamic economic jurisprudence

Hello MezzoMezzo, How have you been? My latest question.

The title of Islamic economics was changed to Islamic economic jurisprudence back in 2007.
It has always bothered me. Some thoughts:

  • With all the literature on the subject of "Islamic Economics" why not an article with that name, i.e specifically on the theory or theories of the ideology of Islamic economics? (There already is an Islamic economics in the world article.) This lack doesn't seem right.
  • "jurisprudence" would seem to indicate an article on fatawa by fuqaha, not on the writings of Muslims (very few of whom can qualify as learned in the Islamic sciences from what I can tell) on Islamic economics, which seems to be about 90% of the article.

What would you think of either changing the name back to Islamic economics, or making a separate article for Islamic economics? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Sorry, I was having trouble finding the time to edit but I should be back more consistently now. In short, I agree with your reasoning here fully and I don't even think there should be too separate articles for the simple reason that we don't have the reliable sources or written text ready for an actual article on jurisprudence. Like you said, most authors are not fuqaha in the classical sense and aside from a few schools in Pakistan and Malaysia, much of the proper juristic work isn't in English. That would be a separate (and huge) undertaking. Would you be amenable to reopening the renaming discussion from 2007? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to do that today. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can ask for a temporary topic ban on Khanyusufkhalil, what you think MezzoMezzo? Fundarise (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

List of converts to Islam from Christianity

Dear MezzoMezzo. Assalamu alaykum. I hope you are well. Can you please look at List of converts to Islam from Christianity . One editor, User:Xtremedood, adds excessive bio details for a Wikipedia list (which I guess I could live with), but, far worse, adds non-notable people and tries to claim that the website http://www.muslimconverts.com/ is a reliable source for them. I don't want to violate edit-war or 3-revert policies. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

GeorgeCustersSabre, it is not excess. Similar articles have much longer data. The information is sourced and relevant to the personality. Xtremedood (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry MezzoMezzo to have a discussion on your talk page. My explanation is at the talk page of the converts list page. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

More Islamic Economics v. Islamic economic jurisprudence

Check this out. Its more trouble than I thought! --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In need of your assistance

Hello MezzoMezzo. I was hoping you could assist me in a matter relating to the articles on individual Sura's of the Qur'an. Is it allowed to use Ibn Kathir or Maududi or two Jalal's tafsirs to build content on the aforementioned pages. Please ping me in you reply. Regards Mbcap (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

{ping|Mbcap} It's been a long time. Anyway, my understanding is that the issue of using tafasir for sources hasn't been widely discussed. From what I understand, the books you mention are like the history of Tabari: they can be primary source or secondary source depending on how one uses them. To attribute an opinion directly to the authors means it's a primary source and that's a danger zone. If we take one of the bajillion narrations in Suyuti's ad-Durr al-Manthur, for example, and say "Suyuti says this" or "Suyuti authenticates this," then we're into a serious misuse of a primary source. Then we get into another issue: if I cite Suyuti to make a factual claim about the surah itself, how can we be sure that the statement is truly representative of the breadth of scholarship? How can I state that without attributing it to the author and without going into primary source usage? In most cases, modern day research pieces from verifiable sources like McGill or Uni. of Chicago research is preferred. Overviews from the Islamic unis in Pakistan and Malaysia are generally quite good as well. Arabic universities have serious quality, accuracy and plagiarism issues with their "research" and I would personally advise staying away from them, even Azhar.
But going back to the tafasir you mentioned...I don't think there is a concrete policy for it. A good experiment would be to start a single discussion on a single article about using one of those sources for a specific purpose, and advertising that discussion on wikiprojects, noticeboards, talk pages, etc. It will be a long process but after that, once a precedent can be established, things will be much quicker and much less likely to be bogged down by dispute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Salam from an old friend

Asalamualeikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Akhi how have you been!? MashaAllah I had a quick peek out of retirement to see the old typical edit-war articles and saw you've maintained much of them alhamdulilah! I'm very happy to see that and I really appreciate your work. May Allah fill your effort with barakah and grant you success in this life and the hereafter! JazakAllahu khair!! Ws, Sakimonk talk 23:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sakimonk: Walaikum as salam, I logged in after a vacay and I've found multiple messages waiting for me from discussions I've neglected. Yes, things are always hectic; a few more guys just got permanently blocked for having created agenda accounts on Islamic articles. It never ends, nor does the need for objective people willing to help. Will you be staying for the long haul this time? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Scott

Let me respond to your accusations. User page indicates to me to that your a revert. Unless of course you are from a long line of native Scottish muslims. Ibn khaldun has made it clear, the Zahiri school is followed by worthless people, deviants, and others. Phase 1 will see the Salafi burnout look it up. Vigorously defending Zahirism means you are a proponent. Zahiri are not accepted by the Sunni. A consensus was formed to eliminate the school of thought. It is for this reason unclassified and does not belong in Sunni category. The group is rare as you said but you insist it being in the Sunni category, which is suspicious to anyone. Ibn khaldun acknowledges its existence but made sure to note it is shunned by the muslim community. Fringe groups like this are only highlighted by people who have a dog in this fight. Do you have a dog in this fight? Calling my edits disruptive is misrepresentation. I did not add my personal opinion on said subject. Dont get upset about facts. People who are unfamiliar with Islamic articles might be fooled but not for long. I know the religion can be confusing for you especially when deviants lead you to a narrow path, but you only have yourself to blame if you are hard headed. If you continue to over represent Zahirism you will eventually be caught. DianeJR (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@DianeJR: I am sad that you've chosen to launch a series of personal attacks and respond to NONE of the policy based arguments. In fact, I highlighted specifically for you the fact that the group does still exist even though, for a period, it did go extinct and many of the Ibn Khaldun references were already added by me. I'm not going to bother responding to your flagrant personal attacks and presumptuous speculation about my personal life. You've been warned and if you contnue to disrupt the encyclopedia, this will escalate to the appropriate channels for dispute resolution and unless you begin contributing positively, this won't end well for you. Please actually READ the policies I recommended on your talk page before responding again, and please lay off the personal attacks. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sad you should be!! for those snarky edit summaries. Wikipedia is not reliable because of deranged editors with an agenda like yourself. 8 years on wikipedia? You must be a lowlife. Let me guess you met a pompous Saudi Arabian in your college days and now your hell bent on spreading zahiri belief to the world. YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!! says the keyboard warrior. Have fun attempting to keep wikipedia narrow and skewed shrek. Sincerely, someone who has a life. DianeJR (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@DianeJR: So because I bring reliable sources to contradict the opinion you formed before even reading all the relevant information on the article...I'm a deranged lowlife? What a good Muslim you are. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
R RFD e SahabAliwadia (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A warning from another user

It is to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not anyone's father's property... a wiki page should contain criticism of a certain person if provided from genuine sources and links... i see you've deleted the vital information that i mention in the pageNasiruddin Albani... I've also provided references there especially the name of Albani's books and those books plus links where he has his refutation from mainstream Sunni Muslims... If you are so keen to highlight Albani in positive way and according to your own fancy and linking, then perhaps you should choose some other websites or to create a website of your own! so please don't try to conceal the truth or violate wiki policy anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahirdyan (talk • contribs) 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mahirdyan: nice of you to finally respond, after being prodded by multiple users. The issues with your edits have already been explained:
  • You're copy pasting word for word from another site.
  • The site you're copy pasting from is a hate site.
  • The author who wrote that piece isn't a professional, academic author.
  • The "citations" are improperly done and don't give the reader a way to actually check anything.
  • Said "citations" are technically primary sources as they're attempting to quote the article subject's works directly to hurl accusations.
  • The presentation of the information is worded such that the criticisms are presented as fact, rather than the opinions of the subject's detractors.
The entire section is simply unacceptable as is, and it's to the point where you really need to actually read site policies before even trying to "fix" this. Editors should be bold. but not foolhardy.
@Pishcal: he finally responded. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You have an IP stalker

These contributions cannot have been by accident. -- Orduin Discuss 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Nor these.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Orduin and Anders Feder: thanks for the save, guys. They reverted me so widely that it's hard to pinpoint what their problem was, and I have a lot of enemies unfortunately. It will be interesting to see if they try again; I have an inkling of who it might be, though I can't be 100% sure. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Add to the pile: one, two, three, four and five more. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Asalamualeikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh

I've come out of retirement for a bit, I was wondering if you could help me keep an eye on Hadith of Najd as there are many users wrecking it. Also, there are quite a few other articles we could discuss later possibly inshaAllah. JazakAllahu khair for your work. Sakimonk talk 07:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Please inshaAllah can you go through Athari, we need to establish some reliable sources to maintain it as an accurate article and not the kalami's viewpoint of what Athari theology is.Sakimonk talk 09:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Madhhab 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:
  • by the leaders of the international Muslim community - five [[Sunni Islam|Sunni]] schools ([[Hanafi]], [[Maliki]], [[Shafi'i]], [[Hanbali]] and [[Zahiri]], two [[Shia Islam|Shia]] schools ([[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Translation requests

Hi! Do you do short translation requests? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I am so, so sorry, I've been terribly busy dealing with IP stalkers lately. Yes, I can try to handle short translation requests, though it's been almost three weeks since you've asked. I hope that hasn't any improvements you might have for any articles on here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This may be of interest

A new account has been speaking of you in rather non AGF terms in regard to the Barelvi page. See here. 220 of Borg 13:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Proofreading translation from Arabic for Al-Ghariyah al-Gharbiyah

Hi. Al-Ghariyah al-Gharbiyah (town in Syria) was originally copied and translated (poorly) from the article in Arabic. I have done some cleanup, but I don't read Arabic. If you have the time, could you please check the English article in case I have made mistakes. I have added some specific notes to Talk:Al-Ghariyah al-Gharbiyah#Check translation from Arabic. I also asked Al Ameer son, who I thought might read Arabic, but doesn't, it turns out. thanks. Nurg (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ismail ibn Musa Menk

Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. I hope you are well. Please see the Ismail ibn Musa Menk page, its talk page, and its edits log. I'm having difficulty with one editor who repeatedly adds unreferenced (or weakly referenced) material and seems to want to create a fan page. Can you please keep an eye on the page for a day or two? Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Walaikum as salam, give me a day or two and I'll make sure to take a look and see what I can do to contribute, both to the article here and the AfD below. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Rashid Al Leem

Brother MezzoMezzo, I would also be grateful for your thoughts on the notability of this page. I've nominated it for deletion. Thanks and salam, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Salam Alaykum, I guess you'd like to participate in this Merger proposal. best wishes. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We share a stalker

Assalamu alaykum MezzoMezzo, I saw that you had a troll who was following your edits and reverting them. I changed them back. Now he's gone crazy reverting all my own edits maliciously. How do we bring this to the attention of an administrator? Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre: walaikum as salam, I'm sorry that you got sucked into this. I was thinking of how to deal with it the other day. A while back, there were two troublemakers/POV pushers who were unrelated, working in different topic areas, etc. that got either chased off the Wiki by the community or banned by mods. I was involved in both efforts and soon after that the reverting started, more than a month ago. I honestly can't tell which one it is and don't want to make accusations when I'm not sure, but it's one of them, no doubt. They follow me even onto random disambiguation pages and revert my edits.
When I went to the page protection request board for the fourth time, I spoke to User:NeilN about the issue and he said since the user has a different IP address every single day - sometimes twice a day - waiting for each page to be protected and then reverting their edits could be the only way. I'm not sure if they have a software program that changes their IP addresses or if they're a big enough loser to literally go to an Internet cafe and jump from computer to computer, but I don't know of a way to stamp it out. Then again, I don't know anything about how the Internet works, so there might be a way. Unfortunately, I don't have any better solutions at this time.
Is there some kind of complaints board where you think we could explain the problem in detail for a more permanent solution? I don't have any idea myself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@GorgeCustersSabre: Assalamu alaykum, Do you have any idea to which user the IP(s) might be connected? If this is the case, then you might take it to SPI. look a at this. Mhhossein (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hridayananda Dasa Goswami

Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. I hope you are well. I am wondering whether you could take a look at the Hridayananda Dasa Goswami page and help me to keep it neutral. I know the subject might not interest you, but one editor seems to want to make it a silly fan page, but not even by including references. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre: walaikum as salam, I actually don't mind looking into articles that aren't usually my realm of expertise. It's an interesting experience in general when I can check out something new. Just give me about half a day or so and I'll try to look over both the article's current state as well as the edit history. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

English language source question

Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. thank you for your interest in Oman's culture and history. yes there are sources and references pertaining to ibadhism and the history of oman on our governmental websites here, but they are in Arabic mostly, sorry...what kind of info exactly are you looking for? I will try my best to help you inshAllah Grandia01 (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Grandia01: walaikum as salam, I mainly wanted the sources in order to expand the Ibadi article as well as articles related to the history and important figures of Oman. Generally, English sources are preferred per WP:NONENG, but in this case I'm having difficulty finding anything. I also downloaded a tablet app from one of the Omani ministires but it doesn't work. Do you have any links to online references? I can provide short translations in Arabic if need be, but the links would need to feature actual passages from real, historical books, not simply a website creator making a claim, because maybe he's wrong. Do you have anything like that? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
ok. in regards to the wanted links that quote passages from authentic historical books, do they need to be exclusively in English only? Grandia01 (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Grandia01: No, I don't think so. Generally English is preferred, but there's so little on Oman and Ibadism that I think we can get away with using some Arabic and translating as long as the claims are modest. Obviously the world needs to know, and I've actually helped with user translations before. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
ok sounds fair. so what exactly you want me to get for you? what aspects of ibhadism you're interested in? what parts of oman's history are you interested in exactly? Grandia01 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
reminder Grandia01 (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Grandia01: sorry for the late response. Well, there's such a dearth of article on Ibadhism and Oman that I think we may have to start from the basics. Take a look at List of rulers of Oman, for example; we don't seem to have information on the places of residence of many of the Imams and for a few of them, we don't even know when they began their turns as ruler. User:Aymatth2 is a history buff that knows quite a bit about Oman, though I haven't contacted him in a while - he might want to help out on that as well.
Oman proper is another one - that article seems to be specific to the elected Imamate, not the trade princes and kings of the coastline, yet we have so little information! How were they governed? What was the legal and administrative system like? Did Ibadhism entirely cancel out tribalism in the interior?
There are many more things that can and should be done, but before any of that takes places the basics of history probably need to be found: names, dates and events. I've never seen such an old, unique country and group of people so neglected here on the site and it seems unfair. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I wish I could help, but I am no expert. I just got interested in making a start at Yaruba dynasty and articles on the rulers using English-language sources, mainly Miles, Samuel Barrett (1919). The Countries and Tribes of the Persian Gulf. There is a sad lack of material about Oman in English, and what I found was often inconsistent. I agree that we may have to go with Arabic sources. Possibly there are Persian sources, but I could not help with either language. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
ok, I have bookmarked these pages and I will do my best to find sources for these three articles that you two mentioned. just give me some time please. thanks much Grandia01 (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

There is mention of you on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, over here [24]. Xtremedood (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand...it's been closed due to your forum shopping before I even logged in. Good job; your behavior is an example to other new editors of how not to handle simple content disputes. Seriously, if you'd only try to get along you'd find most of us, if not all of us, willing to let the past stay in the past and just get back to improving the encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

dispute on ISIS in Islamic views on slavery

I suspect you find the whole topic disgusting and depressing but hope you will offer an opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_views_on_slavery#Update_on_dispute_on_ISIS_and_jihadist_section --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Ahhhhh...shit. Yeah, I kind of hate those people but the topic is definately relevant given what's happening. Give me a while to read over the discussion and I'll try to chime in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Letting you know

Information icon Hello, I'm Misdemenor. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Misdemenor (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is rich...you imply that other editors are infidels; open up discussion topics on talk pages solely to attack the personal views of other editors that are unrelated to actually editing the articles, even pinging them in the process; get caught blatantly pushing POV and more or less not even excusing yourself for it; and now you're templating regulars. This is just too much.
Learn to view other editors as peers and colleagues you can collaborate with and lean on for assistance, not as enemies you must refute in order to push your personal beliefs. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I had already figured that out. Do you think that his/her writing style resembles that of another conflict-hunter we met recently? [25]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Toddy1: that's...uncanny. I suspected something, but withheld judgment; we've had so much trouble on any articles related to Salafism or Barelvism in the past few years that it's hard not to suspect aggressive newcomers of actually being old puppeteers. Do you think it's worth pursuing based on a similar combative style and topic interest? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Small Ar-En translation request

Hi MezzoMezzo! I'm having trouble verifying a source and it might help if I knew what the title meant: Kitab wal-ta'tiyya (by Salman Farooq if that helps, unless the ref is WP:CB). Thanks! - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: Salman Faruq is an extremely generic name, and ta'tiyyah is not an Arabic word. I found literally nothing at all, though maybe the book isn't even Arabic; maybe it's Urdu. Maybe it's Swahili. Maybe it's Malay. We don't know; no information is given and technically, there's no proof that it's a real book.
In addition, the Qur'anism article has long been plagued by editors pushing that POV and trying to build up the article based on speculation and specious arguments. To assume that the book isn't even real wouldn't be a longshot. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thought so already, thanks! I'll go ahead and remove the statement, also considering that the editor who had added it was banned for sockpuppeting. - HyperGaruda (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you review Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan?

Can you review my draft? It has been pending for 2 month because of the biased reviewers. Ejaz92 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad ibn Hanbal

I think you don't read these articles. He was not from Salafi Jihadism or Salafi Movement. But your article salafi tells he was. Salafi Movement. and Salafiyyah are different concepts you should read and learn

68.100.166.227 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoramus

Stick to eating snakes. Malaylampur (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It involves this particular section on your talk page. - HyperGaruda (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Shaykh

Are you an islamic scholar? How do you know which sect is right or wrong? Malaylampur (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Halt edits

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Misdemenor (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Misdemenor, I hope you are well. I have followed MezzoMezzo's recent edits and I don't agree that they represent or push any fringe or disproportionate views. Sorry. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I did not ask for your opinion. Its quite interesting that you appear to defend him on every article. Im looking for non bias input. Misdemenor (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Misdemenor. No need to get excited. I'm not an enemy. Actually, I do not know MezzoMezzo's real identity, have no relationship with him, or especially favour him. I just see him as a patient, reliable and neutral editor and think you have a developed a problem with him. I don't care if you asked for my view or not, but I send you greetings of peace and goodwill. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Correct me if im wrong but were you not the editor who agreed with Sakimonk on the Salafi page? You know the one that almost got banned for pushing his viewpoint across a range of articles. Wikipedia is not a playground where you can uphold original research material, or misinterpret sources the way you like. Misdemenor (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Where does such bitterness and personal animosity come from, Misdemenor? I don't remember the case you are talking about, but I try hard to stay neutral and to uphold the neutrality, accuracy and usefulness of Wikipedia. It certainly wasn't ME who almost got banned. I just see that you are misrepresenting a fellow editor with a decent track record (MezzoMezzo). In any event, I wish you health and success Insha'Allah. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

zahiri is not mainstream view

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing. Misdemenor (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a joke. Two editors other than me have already pointed out that you're editing against the academic consensus found in multiple reliable sources, and I noticed that you've even deleted a few sources (one of them from Oxford University Press) when they don't confirm the POV you're pushing. Go ahead, try to template regulars who oppose your combative behavior. When you're ready to stop hurling personal attacks, adhere to site policies and discuss matters like a mature adult, the rest of us in the editing community will gladly work along with you, but your current course of action isn't going to get you what you want. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
But you made a living out of personally insulting users. Are you kidding me? Messages are saved on here [26]. Two editors who appear at every edit that has something to do with you. Its very suspicious. Misdemenor (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Open a sockpuppet investigation, then. The last time a terminal breacher of rules regarding civility and insults such as yourself (seriously, your link there is an odd choice - it's me politely responding to your own insults) accused me of sockpuppetry simply because the community disagreed with that user, it ended up not only coming out clean but boomeranging on them. So come on, if you really think that two editors disagreeing with you is suspicious - and not simply a result of, I don't know, maybe you just maybe possible being wrong - then go open an SPI. You have my full consent even for a checkuser. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I did open an SPI. Thank GorgeCustersSabre for claiming to know you on facebook. I hope you know its an encyclopedia not some blog hosted by you and your friends. Im sure you can tell me something about "terminal breaching". You began personally attacking me on behalf of Sakimonk so I know for sure you are pushing a view thats of the minority. Really that was polite? I wonder how your like when you want to be rude then. Its suspicious when its a breach of wikipedia guidelines. Fringe views should not be highlighted on those articles. I would like to see you try doing that on arabic wikipedia. Misdemenor (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Misdemenor, you know full well that I corrected a hurried typing error and clarified that I do NOT know MezzoMezzo on ANY social media or in any context outside of Wikipedia. My defence of his editing is based solely on my observation of the quality of his edits. You're exposing your own misconduct by choosing only information that suits you and by continuing your attacks on fellow editors. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
An honest mistake is not done twice. You seem to know Mezzo well enough based on the discussion over at the noticeboard. You described him as a good and honest editor and perhaps a family man? You even said that he does not follow your maddhab what is that suppose to mean? Are you a Zahiri yourself? Quit dancing around the issue your just making things worse for yourself. Misdemenor (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I am Hanafi. "A family man"? That's rather pathetic. You have become a bit delusional in these false accusations. But I nonetheless wish you peace. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@GorgeCustersSabre: he's just grasping for straws because he realizes that multiple users disagree with his edits - which isn't a big deal anyway, if he'd just behave like a mature adult he might actually be able to convince people to change their minds. Instead he's just trying to cause as much trouble as possible. It's something to watch, but from what I've seen in the past, eventually the truth will be revealed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, MezzoMezzo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Misdemenor (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Sultan ul Faqr group once again

Hi MezzoMezzo,

As a followup on last year's efforts against a sock farm [27], I see the group is still active. After failing to purge Hamza Makhdoom off WP (just because the guy is known locally as Sultan ul-Arifeen, the title which the group claims for their venerated Sultan Bahoo), the folks are now trying to delete Hari Parbat because of Hamza Mahkdoom's shrine there [28] and Makhdoom [29] - is it because it links to "Hamza Makhdoom"? This is so that you are up to date with the group's funny activity. Best, kashmiri TALK 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: oh my...yes, I remember that whole fiasco! That one really dragged on. Alright, I'm going to look at this right now; my Wiki time is limited but I've been logging on daily again, so I'll see if I can consistently follow this. That guy (or group of whoever the puppets were) wasted a lot of the community's time; there's a proven track record of sockpuppetry but I'll try to AGF for now and just inspect the situation to start. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A technical group for dispute resolution

Salam Alaykum Eid al-Milad al-Nabi Mubarak.

There are many Islamic-related articles which may become controversial between Muslims and non-Muslims or different Islamic Madhabs. Following our succesful attempts to improve the lead of Ali and current effort in Taqiya, I suggest forming a "technical group for dispute resolution" in WP:Islam. I hope this effort pave the road to solve more severe controversies such as Islamic terrorism.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: walaikum as salam and belated milad Mubarak, thanks for thinking of me regarding this. This sounds like a great initiative, but will it be like a Wikiproject page or something unofficial? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I intend to make a "dispute resolution taskforce" in WP:Islam. There can be two or three coordinator and several volunteer participator.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sa.vakilian: that sounds like an awesome idea. I don't think I'm prepared for a heavy time commitment, but if you guys are short on the number of volunteer participators, then I can try my best. If not, then I support such an idea either way; it's a great initiative and sorely needed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you already read this:

  • بلغ العلی بکماله
  • کشف الدجی بجماله
  • حسنت جمیع خصاله
  • صلوا علیه و آله

by Saadi Shirazi--Seyyed(t-c) 08:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: unfortunately, my experience with Arabic poetry is almost all with the pre-Islamic stuff. Is there a place online where I can find these works? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Saadi is a Persian poem, but he has some brilliant Arabic poets as well. --Seyyed(t-c) 09:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ==

Misdemenor (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello - Salam

Othmanebenjelloun (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Othmanebenjelloun: oh, w/salam to you too! Wikipedia always needs more battle cats! MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Madhhab: cut-and-paste page move and your recent contribution

Hi, an IP editor recently attempted to move Madhhab and Talk:Madhhab to "Madhab" by copy-and-paste (!). I have now reverted the changes (someone may carry out move in a proper way if consensus is there) but in the meantime you wrote a few paragraphs on Talk:Madhab. So that your comments don't get lost, will you mind re-adding them to the now restored Talk:Madhhab? — kashmiri TALK 23:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You will need to dig your comments up from Talk page history. — kashmiri TALK 23:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: sounds like a case of good initiative but not so great judgment. Thanks for the notice, I'll try to salvage what I can from my part of the discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Away

I will be away due to a personal issue. I'll return in a few months. Sorry for the inconvenience.Misdemenor (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Misdemenor: I will respect your choice and await your return so we can work to improve those articles we had some disagreements on. I wish you all the best. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yousuf Gabriel

Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. I hope you are well. I know you are busy but I'll be very glad and grateful if you'll please look at the Yousuf Gabriel page and in particular at the deletion recommendation page. I believe the page clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and may have been created by a fan (the only editor aside from me) to promote the sale of a book. In any event, the article relies on unacceptable or weak sources and says almost nothing that can be considered encyclopedic. Thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre: walaikum as salam, I'm so sorry for the late response but it seems like the community already handled the issue. In the coming weeks, I'm going to try and be more active again, so hopefully reaching me for my input will be easier. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How are you these days

How are you these days--Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1: I'm fine, how are you? It's been a while; will you start editing again? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


I started work on the Succession to Muhammad page [30] a few years ago and then stopped because there were a lot of contradictions in the various texts. And a lot of politics. So I have been digging around. Do you know much about this subject. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Johnleeds1: Unfortunately, I don't think I'd know any more than you do on that one. My historical knowledge is random - I know certain pieces of history and then my knowledge is blank for a few decades until a certain event that interests me came along. But maybe I can try to help...what specifically are you trying to search for? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

ghusl

At the risk of betraying my ignorance is this right? -BoogaLouie (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Hey, let me see if I can explain it in a different way than the website quoted in the discussion...
  • Wudhu: used before every single prayer
  • Ghusl: after doing it with somebody
Also, ghusl just happens to count as wudu according to the majority Sunni view (I'm saying majority instead of consensus because I haven't checked to see if there's a minority opinion out there). So let's say some couple does it. They have to make ghusl, and when they make ghusl, they could also start praying again because it's like super wudu. If that makes sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I thought. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@MezzoMezzo: PS, do you see any obvious problems with this lede? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@BoogaLouie: no man, that actually looks pretty good - easy for the reader to understand, and straight to the point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

kalam revert

I just copied what was on another article [31] Therefore revert your edit back unless your now claiming athari is kalam. Misdemenor (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Misdemenor: Done. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Misdemenor (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have submitted the DR here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood. --Mawlidman (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Al-Kisa'i

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from http://www.abraronline.net/en/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=129&Itemid=301, a copyright web page. I had to download the document to view the material. It is on page 4. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I very strongly feel this was a mistake. I'm not upset, mind you; I understand that you're trying to avoid a major violation of policies, but this is honestly quite shocking to me. I copied the material from Sibawayh, which was added to that article by someone else back in 2013. Additionally, I own the Versteegh source that I later added to that section (notice that only the Carter source is available in the above edit), and I searched the other Brill source plus the I.B. Tauris book via Google Books.
I'm not arguing for the exact wording to be reinstated; I'm merely pointing out that I copied the section in the Kisa'i article from the Sibawayh article, which appeared to be properly sourced and has stood for three years. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I apologise. Since the prose was added to our wiki in 2013, and the PDF I found it in is dated March 2014, it is obvious that they copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around. In the future, could you please mention in your edit summary when you are copying from one Wikipedia article to another? It will help prevent mistaken notifications such as this in the future. In fact attribution is required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license. In addition to the edit summary, it is good practice if copying is extensive to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of both articles. I have reversed my actions on the article and have added the required attribution. My apologies for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa: no, please don't apologize! This is part of what you volunteered for, and when it comes to issues of copyright violations, I can understand why the policy errs on the side of caution. Plus, since changes can be reversed, there's no harm done. If anything, this is a good lesson for me on the pitfalls of copying even from other Wikipedia articles and why I should be clarifying my actions better in edit summaries.
Thank you for your vigilance - this isn't the first time I've encountered you, and every interaction was positive. We need attentive admins who do actually take the time to inspect details. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, as I am a signatory to the User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values, the apology is mandatory (see rule #3). — Diannaa (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

anasoft.base.pk/Wahhabi%20Islam%20-%20From%20Revival%20and%20Reform%20to%20Global%20Jihad%20by%20Natana%20J.%20Delong-Bas.pdf

36.81.88.250 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi

Dear MezzoMezzo, assalamu alaykum. I hope you are fine. Can you please look at recent edits on this page - Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi - and see what you think of the sources used. One editor wants to use a blog and youtube, and I disagree. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Walaikum as salam User:GorgeCustersSabre, long time no see. I'll take a look at the edits on the page shortly. It's been a while since I looked at that person's page, but I imagine that people have strong opinions about the individual. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@GorgeCustersSabre: I just reviewed the edits...the person deleted citations including New York University Press and The New York Times. That, to me, is an even bigger problem, though the fact that he replaced those two highly reliable sources with a web forum post and a Youtube video just makes this even more of an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to ask, MezzoMezzo, but could you please take one more look at this page. I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle over one small issue. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Have You seen this

Salam Alaykum. Have you seen this [32]. Do you know the other users who may vote for it? Best, --Seyyed(t-c) 06:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"Walaikum as salam User:Sa.vakilian, though I'm not sure how to inform people of this. I literally didn't know about it until you just told me, and I don't know much about the rules between Commons and here. Are we allowed to post about it at Wikiproject talk pages and stuff? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MezzoMezzo/Archive_5&oldid=1147993265"