Jump to content

User talk:MezzoMezzo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimharlow99 (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 30 September 2014 (→‎new laptop). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Greetings from me too! May you live happily for ever. Faizan 17:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I no longer have any concerns. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the positive attitude

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

Thanks for help in Muhammad Abduh page

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Interest

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes thanks it works, unless you've turned page notifications of on preferences, :) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
User:Middayexpress and User:Bladesmulti, I will take a look at it right now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, good luck. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
In any case, please can you review his/her proposals on Talk:Salafi movement.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I just logged on, let me see if I can take a detailed look now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

NorthAmerica1000 15:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Calypsomusic, I don't get it. What is this all about? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have removed you, but I strongly recommend that you add yourself to the list. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Template:Z33

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)[reply]

More page moves

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

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Preoccupied a bit with Ramadan at the moment. But yeah, sounds good I think. ITAQALLAH 15:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've been using the wikipedia user "notifications" to follow this. BoogaLouie (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

new laptop

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

I could use your help with some vandals

https://en.chped.com/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)

Retrieved from "https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MezzoMezzo&oldid=627725490"