Jump to content

User talk:MezzoMezzo/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Diagram

I put the diagram on the Islam page but some people want to remove it Do you want to add your comments in the talk section of the Islam page --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Well I've changed it to a redlink, but I'm not sure if that solves the problem. Not sure I want to help an IP do AfDs to be honest. I don't believe any editor should even comment on an AfD unless they've created a minimum 5 articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd leave it. If someone fixes it further then fine. If not someone will probably remove it after 7 days or so. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for note. To be honest it's a borderline article - belongs in a bio of the particular journalist. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Difficult to know, they seem to be cussing each other. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion discussion

Hiya, would just like to request further discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Free (band). All the best Charon123able (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/P. Narahari

Please help me from saving this article from deleteion. It will be really helpful. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2743660 any idea? I checked his father's article and couldn't find link to the son. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

3rd opinion

there's a dispute between me and another editor on ahbash..your input would be appreciated. Baboon43 (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh man...well, if asked for help, as a fellow editor I feel guilty saying no. I will read the discussion and offer some input. I hope we can find some sort of a solution to the Ahbash pages. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You are a very patient editor. Thank you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you very much for your seemingly endless patience with the troublesome Barelvi / Deobandii debate. I admire your patience, energy, tenacity and fairness. Most other editors would have given up. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. This is related to the disputes at the Barelvi article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.This is related to the disputes at the Barelvi article.Dil e Muslim talk 17:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Rajiv Jain

Rajiv Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings,

I am a frequent user of Wikipedia since 1st December 2009 when I need to research on people, practices, places and things. I would like to start by sharing my deep appreciation for the great work that others like you and yourself are doing to maintain the quality and accuracy of articles on Wikipedia.

While I appreciate the continuous necessity to review the contents on your pages, I was unpleasantly surprised to see Mr. Rajiv Jain (cinematographer) nominated for deletion from your esteemed pages.

I request you to kindly peruse through what I have enumerated below and then make an informed decision on the way forward on this page and his presence there.

Towards this attempt, I would like to share with you a few reasons why I believe that Mr. Rajiv Jain’s candidature befits his presence on Wikipedia.

1. Below mentioned are a few sources that will point out his contributions to Indian cinema

a. http ://www.gomolo.com/about-rajiv-jain/16993

b. http://www.ranker.com/list/movies-with-cinematography-by-rajiv-jain/reference

c. http:// www.gomolo.com/about-rajiv-jain/16993

d. http://movie-stars.us/filmography/rajiv%20jain.aspx

e. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1203010/

2. I have edited this page  and have removed links to his website, interviews, articles or blog (which some have commented to have been created personally by himself)   3. IMDB (internet Movie Database) is a credible site which enumerates the work of notable contributors and related cinema releases. I request you to kindly credit them with the professional respect and consideration that one would give to honourable peers. While IMDB may not equate to notability or nomination to a celebrity club, it can undoubtedly be considered as the most reliable data base on films and key contributors to the industry 

4. As a regular user of Wikipedia, I can assure you of the presence of many other names that would earn lower eligibility to be on the coveted Wikipedia pages. These less than worthy nominations are present from all industries viz; politics, international relations, the corporate world, Bollywood and more importantly, Indian cinematographers. I would of course refrain from being rude enough to mention their names or nominate them for deletion. In the event you do proceed with your decision to do away with Mr. Jain’s presence on your pages, I would certainly ask you to peruse through the following link and proceed with appropriate due diligence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_cinematographers

5. I request you to kindly Google about him using ‘RAJEEV JAIN CINEMATOGRAPHER’ as keywords for your search. I assure you that you will be able to read a lot of information about him  in the form of write ups, interviews, videos on You tube, his working stills etcetera

6. Mr. Jain has worked with notablable film Producers / Directors like like Aziz Mirza, Chandrakant Kulkarni, Ketan Mehta, Makrand Deshpande, Late Mukul S. Anand, Nitin Chandrakant Desai, Rajiv Rai, Satish Kaushik, Shyam Benegal, Subhash Ghai and Wanuri Kahiu, who are themselves present on Wikipedia.

7. While I have edited his page to only include professional essentials, I would like to point out that the contents on his page were not very different from the content on the Wikipedia pages of other cinematographers

a. I do not think it will be criminal to mention his wife and daughters’ names on his page as a person’s success at work is fuelled by the support, faith and love of his family. Besides, many other cinematographers have their spousal and children’s details mentioned on their pages.

i. His daughter Abigail Jain is a popular Indian television actor who has a Wikipedia page to herself.

ii. His daughter Kimberly also had a Wikipedia page, which has now been discontinued as she has taken a brief brake to complete her high school education 

8. While I appreciate the spirit behind the freedom available to anyone to nominate personalities / articles for deletion from Wikipedia, I would like to share a recommendation that you also put in place a method to control nominations that are made with mala fide intent (of which  I am certain is this case) I realise that my notes and comments are lengthy and therefore appreciate your time and patience to read through it. I look forward to an informed decision on the matter.

Why are you posting this on my talk page? Do you think I'm some sort of an administrator? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Asín

Regarding Miguel Asín Palacios, as may be appropriate here: shukran jazilan. Elfelix (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi

I came across this discussion on AN/I. I could be wrong, but seeing the rotten style I had to think about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molvi333. Same focus on Pakistan, same poor language. Take a look at it... The Banner talk 18:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu SPI

Well, those are some interesting results. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Responded to your mail. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Peter Bush

Thanks for your Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bush (businessman). This has been a painfully drawn out process and has seen some very odd responses that suggest that editors do little research before casting a "vote". The original call for deletion came within minutes of a confrontation I had with the editor who made the call and at best appeared to be vexatious. For that reason I was very surprised by the calls for Delete from so many. Where does this article go wrong or am I mistaken in finding the subject obviously notable in the Australan business and sporting worlds? Castlemate (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Murabitun

Hi, If you think it's important, I'll have a look at the Murabitun article some of these days. Cheers.S711 (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Deleted some unreferenced lines and paragraphs, added some information and footnotes.S711 (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Karan Rao Comment (Sockpuppets)

You have stated, concerning deletion of Karan Rao, that User:Candicell and User:Dr Adil are the same person, e.g., sockpuppets.  Do you have evidence?  If so, please request a sockpuppet investigation or give me information to request a sockpuppet investigation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at Ghorpaapi's talk page.
Message added 04:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ghorpaapi (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! please do not mind the talk message I understood what you meant :D Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Request

السلامُ عليكم! How are you? Hope completely fine. I am Wamiq, the user who is engaged in the discussion about the deletion of Sanaullah Haq, opposing you. I have contacted you here for making a request having no connention with the debate. Faizan and I are going to take our exams whithin a week. Would you not mind if I ask you to please make Duʿāʾ for our exams? I will be highly grateful to you. الله حافظ.

Walaikum as salam. I will make sure to remember you both in du'a during sujood and otherwise in sha Allah. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Thanks for it Mezzo! Faizan -Let's talk! 09:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
☺ Thanks a lot, from me, too! I’ll remember you, too in my Duʿāʾs. جزاك الله خيرًا.

Hey! Is Alligator/Crocodile Halal? And have you not eaten the meat which many eat? E.g., Chicken, Quail, Beef, Lamb, Goat, Duck, Turkey, etc.

Meat of gator/croc is differed over, just like hyena meat. Both sides have their proofs, and in fiqh issues like that I don't like to say one view is absolutely right and one is wrong. I picked the view with which I am comfortable, and on yaum al qiyama we will learn what the correct view was. Until then, I don't see it worth arguing over. As for common animals then yes, perhaps I will add those too just to be clear. I'm surprised that someone else took an interest. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I did not intend to argue. I really did not know anything about it (actually I never cared, for we never come across Crocodile/Alligator meat here). And yes, you did what you thought right as our Prophet has given us the choice in such matters where scholars differ. Ah, yes, I just took interest because I saw you have really eaten a great variety of meat.

As you live in the US, a thought came to my mind that how do you survive in such a land where most people are Islamophobic? Living here in a Muslim country is easy. There is a mosque at every corner, you never have to care about Halal meat and you never have to worry about your Prayers, you do not see Islamic laws being violated, you being forced to be ashamed of your religion or your religion being criticised openly. (Asked this because I might go to the UK after I graduate for higher studies)

Now, what is your ethnicity (Black, White, Red, Asian)? As you have not put up your actual name so its difficult to make a guess. And are you a convert, a born Muslim, an immigrant, etc.? (Just curious)

As mentioned on my user page, I'm of Scottish origins. I converted to Islam rather than being born into it. Clan McTavish to be exact, though like many of the clan in the US, we adopted the Anglicized name Thompson. As for other topics of a personal nature, I would prefer to discuss them off Wikipedia if you're that interested. I don't know if you allow the email option open or use social media or what, but I am more easily reachable outside Wikipedia anyway. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
That would be very good! If you're ready to provide any of your off-Wikipedia contact, I will contact you then. If you do not want to, I will provide you any of my contacts. —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 08:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
That's great Thompson! Many many congrats, for your conversion to Islam. Can you just explain in a single line, what was the main factor behind it, please? Or what persuaded you to accept? Faizan -Let's talk! 09:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

SPI on you

Seen it? When will CSGU give up? Oh wait, because I used that term, I must be Qwryxian... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For writing Camilla Adang; it's rare to find well-written articles on academics, and we definitely need more of them! Keep up the good work :). Ironholds (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled right

Congratulations! I'll go for that right later on, when I've written a few more articles. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It actually came as a surprise this morning. A welcome one, though...I still have a lot of biographies to create. Let's see if your racing articles can top my people ones. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Best wishes from me too! Mezzo! Keep up the great work! Faizan -Let's talk! 08:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Userbox

Peace be upon you Mezzo! I have come across several Userpages, where especially the userboxes of sects are common on Muslim Wikipedians' userpages. A simple request to replace your "Sunni Islam" userbox with "Islam" only. Really this is a disgrace to Islam, these sects should be finished, and we should have a common identity. Just a request, nothing more than that. I am sorry for my most religious comments, I know some people are somehow disturbed by them. But nothing more than that. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you say, I can replace it! Faizan -Let's talk! 09:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems that I saddened you due to this request. I am sorry if it did! (︺︹︺) Faizan 12:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
@User:Faizan: I wasn't sad, I just failed to prioritize. I list myself as Sunni due to some personal differences in principles. That being said, I can write you a fairly long list of issues on which I believe the entirety of Sunni scholarship has been absolutely 100% wrong and the entirety of Shi'ite scholarship has been 100% right, and vice versa. I list myself as that just to avoid speculation; people know the rough box I fall into but I'm not prejudiced against Shi'ites or Ibadhiya for that matter and didn't mean to give that impression by my forgetting the comment. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I have the same faith too. As you said, Sunni and Shi'ite scholarship, both can be 100% wrong and 100% right. But that's what I was requesting. According to our own personal differences, we should opt for the principles that suit us, either Shi'ite or Sunni, but we should not divide ourselves between Sunni and Shia. I shall be very grateful to you, if you forward me the email which you sent to Wamiq, regarding the blessed faith. I just want to learn from my elder brother. Maybe it is in your "Sent messages". Faizan 08:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Your last change on Barelvi article is a clear violation of WP:POV.Your accusation and changes not only supported by a single source is just Conspiracy of your mind.The changes of a large amount of text to a sensitive topic like beliefs removal of a large amount of contents against sources, an effort to make it lessinformative show this movement in bad light.you are relating this movement to other terms is clear violation of nutral point of view.*YOU CANNOT CHANGE TEXT ACCORDING TO YOUR WILL.*2.134.139.137 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello 2.134.139.137, it is you who continues to push a POV. Please desist. We just aim for neutrality. Sorry MezzoMezzo that he's brought this to your talk page.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Caliphate

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at Runehelmet's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Runehelmet (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

pleas give me your email.I have something to ask with you?---zeeyanwiki discutez 05:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just go here and you can email him without his email! Faizan -Let's talk! 05:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Saladin's Origin - update Talk

please read :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisan.Cavdarli (talk • contribs) 11:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sufi-Salafi relations article

See what you think of my work so far. Have not gone over it for cleanup and rewriting yet. Have had trouble finding any non-salafi sources with anything very critical of sufis in regards to clash between the two groups, aside from comments about the sufi's quietist cooperation-with-government tendencies. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hi MezzoMezzo, those changes was 100% correct and relevant. "Alizai" is not his name; his name is "Zubair". He is famous as "Zubair Alizai". That's why I used "Zubair Alizai".

I apologize for not providing editing details in "edit summary" section.

Please restore those changes.

FYI, I'm his son; so I know him better than any other person.

10:10 AM, Tuesday, May 21, 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muazkh (talk • contribs)

AFD votes too fast!

You are voting in every 1—2 minutes, From 3:46 to 4:12 you have voted in 15 AFD discussions! Are you checking the articles and find sources in web? --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can assure you. I type 120 wpm and have a fast Internet connection, and I am running searches on all the articles for which I commented. I don't feel I am being flippant or giving only cursory glances, and unless strong arguments otherwise are given then I wouldn't reverse any of the comments for delete or keep I made this morning. I do take your concern to heart, however, as Wikipedia is a community and community feedback and advice should be heeded. If it appears odd, then I will slow things down and take a bit more time in the future and monitor how many AfDs I comment on in a given period of time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC
Whoosh, that's alright, I have to remember that everyone is not User:Titodutta who needs minimum 10 minutes to study an AFD! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
And 120 WPM! That's amazing! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Saw the talkback message on Tito's talk page. It is too fast. A look at your votes do show you are not being flippant and you do give good arguments. That is more than I can say for most people voting. However, you cannot just vote on what is presented in the article. Need to do some web searches at the very least and that takes more than a few minutes. I think the most important, solemn job in Wikipedia is AfD. Deleting articles is very serious.
Don't need to do talkbalks any more. Saw Tito and another editor doing this... doing @User:Titodutta will sent a notification via the new system. Tito likes doing that to put a certain person down, which is why I mentioned it because...
Hey Tito, both Mezzo and I have fast internet connections. You need the minimum 10 minutes because that is how long one web search takes to return the results. Have you upgraded to a 600 baud modem yet? Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Bgwhite, commonly speaking, we have multiple problems a) problem facing Indian language sources: there are 22 national languages in India, and we generally don't learn more than 2—3 languages. The language we are talking about "Malayalam" ("MalayalaM" is a palindrome), you know better than me about this language. Recently I talked to Sitush to create a section in WP India "WikiProject India members by languages known", we have categories, but most members are inactive. User:Crtew also asked it recently. if such a list can be created finally, it'll be very helpful to find local/Indian language sources. b) Indian English language sources a good number of American/British (in alphabetical order) newspaper digital archives goe back to 1950—1960. But, even the most popular Indian English newspapers generally don't have archive before 2000. Worse than that Google does not always crawl these newspapers properly. And a good number of AFD discussions are closed with "what we have in Google currently" basis. WP:Bangladesh have similar issues. For WP:India, few editors are going ahead to protect the articles. Do not know about WP:Bangladesh. Very recently I saw a national newspaper of Bangladesh was going to be rejected as "local newspaper".
  • About DGG, yes, he is a great editor. He gave me some very good suggestions on WP:AFC. But, at least in 2 discussions our opinions did not match. Let me show you one discussion, it is one of the most memorable discussions I had, when I went there everyone had given "delete" votes and the "keep" voters were accused of sock-puppetry and their votes were rejected. The task was to save the article from there, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naaptol.com --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for you to work on

Been doing some NPP, and I've found a couple of Islam-related articles that need looking at: Tafsir Shobar and Tafsir Furat Kufi. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Lukeno94 Do you think they might fail notability guidelines or do they just need a general cleanup? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Add these to your list: Ahmad Saeed Kazmi, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. :P - Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with the Qadri article might seem slightly less like a punishment with all the dirty socks in the wash. Let me see what I can do tomorrow (likely 18 hours from right now). MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
@User:Lukeno94, the two tafsir articles seem to have been sourced recently, and I think they can pass by WP:GNG. This Ahmad Saeed Kazmi fellow, however, seems to have nothing on him. There are social media links and references to him in the works of Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri, but aside from that I can't even find a single reliable source on him. What do you think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Muhalla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mamluk Sultanate (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) 12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for the kind message. Bearian (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Baboon43 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Salam Bro.

Regarding your nomination of the Hadiths on Mut'ah for deletion, I can help you to reach compromise. We can merge their content to the main article and redirect the Hadiths articles to the main article. Best. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Sa.vakilian, walaikum as salam. Alright but here's the thing, those individual hadith articles are mostly the same. Not all, but mostly. I didn't nominate all the others at one time because I didn't want to flood the AfD listings. If we want to do this comprehensively, then we need to look at the rest of them and determine which ones actually have some value to them. I still uphold that the one's I nominated consist of OR. When we look at the others, how much reliably sourced material will we be able to find? That's the question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I realized my comments might seem too terse. To clarify, I am 100% open to the possibility of you, me and other concerned editors undertaking such a comprehensive merge/redirect, I'm just saying let's do it right and ensure that we only do so for reliably sourced material. I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm closed off to the idea, on the contrary it's refreshing to see other editors who could potentially be interested in a long-term project to improve the encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
We can make an article on Hadith related to Mut'ah and merge and redirect all of those hadith articles to it.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright, but what should be included in the content of this suggested article? Surely we can't keep all the material on the various articles. While I'm sure some of them are reliably sourced, not all of them are. Should we trawl through them one by one and make some sort of project out of it? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting/inviting me, the plan seems to have merit in it. For starters we need to have plan what to keep, what to move and what to merge. MezzoMezzo says, "...those individual hadith articles are mostly the same. Not all, but mostly. I didn't nominate all the others at one time...", so can we have list of all such articles, so that we can start with first level categorization.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 14:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the run so I don't have much time, but @User:Sa.vakilian and @User:Faizhaider, let me go see if I can retract my AfD nominations so we can start this project seriously. I'm not the most knowledgeable of AfD rules but I think I can do that since I was the original nominator. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a concern with some of the OR put forth in the articles; interpretation of religious works should be supported by secondary sources; a large amount of the material seems to be original interpretation (OR) and Salaf in favor of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad is support only, but not a single objection which identifies a single POV. A proper list form could be done for this article and several others. Hadith of Mut'ah and Imran ibn Husain need more backing for sure. The issue as seen in [Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah]] is the first ref is not verifiable and it leads into Hadith regarding the use of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad with primary sources, but no interpretation and some of these translations may in fact be wrong. A lot of work is needed to make it encyclopedic and authoritative. I'm open to a great merger and expansion of the core concepts and ideas; but we really need a scholar or at least a few experts to curb misinterpretations and provide a strong neutral stance which explores the concepts better than most lecturers could give. As it stands; it is really hard to follow and disjointed and not neutral in many places and lacking proper secondary interpretation. I'm up for the work; but the call to fix alone should stop the AFD if you withdraw it. The work will not be easy, but the pages may end up having to be recreated essentially. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding translations, we can rely on original (translated) sources, secondary interpretations, etc. If references are mentioned in secondary sources than we should use the secondary sources in the support of references.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 13:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to see everyone is on board. We can get through the nitty gritty in a little bit; the main hump that we're almost over now is making sure we're all on the same page and that, by withdrawing my nominations, I won't be leaving anybody out or stepping on any toes. To wrap things up here, do we have the green light to withdraw the nominations and move things to the talk page of Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah? I believe that article links to all the hadith articles in question and it might be an easy place to go through everything. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Good idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright, all four have been withdrawn. Let's move the discussion to the target talk page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hanbali

I replied to you on the article talk p. This is not a unique situation. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 08:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan 08:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please could you amend an typographical error you made, where you indicated the wrong user

Please could you amend your posting on Talk:Muawiyah I. There is a typographical error "Dianna" was written when you meant "Diannaa". Your request for help can be found on User talk: Diannaa, not User talk: Dianna.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Consider it done, and thanks for informing me. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Careless of our friend to edit the talk page unlogged in.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

hi there

i apologize for the remarks during our heated debate..was having a bad few weeks but i must say your rfc is ridiculous Baboon43 (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope things start to look up for you. I'm not just saying that. I have very little problem with you on the content end of things and thus I don't hold any ill will. But if the RFC is ridiculous, then the community will recognize that during its candidacy. If not, then we'll take it from there. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Favour

At the AFD for Anti-Muslim pogroms in India you suggested a rename to Anti-Muslim violence in India, I have rewritten the article in userspace and am hoping you can provide some feedback on the changes made. You can find the draft here Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Darkness Shines, I would like to give some feedback. I felt and still do feel that it's a notable subject and a worthwhile article, but I also have some issues with the current prose there. I have to go to my service provider in a few hours due to net problems, once I can srot those out I will try to give some more cogent answers. I hope the wait doesn't create any inconvenience. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

الـمُـطـلِـب

السلام عليكم sir, sorry for disturbing you again, but I had an issue regarding the Arabic pronunciation of the name المطلب, which is translated on-wiki as al-Muṭṭalib. This does not fit into any of the fixed أوزان for derived nouns in Arabic grammar (please guide me if I am missing something)... The وزن we use is mufaʿʿil and that is how we have always transliterated and used this name—al-Muṭallib (even in our books). Which وزن is muffaʿil? I have never encountered this وزن anywhere else. Is Muttalib correct, after all? I am full of doubt regarding this. Thanks in advance. والسلام...—Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 09:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Syed_Wamiq_Ahmed_Hashmi Ah, this is a good question. This name is from the root yuttalib, and the Taa is mushaddada because the root is actually مطتلب on the pattern of مفتعل like نقل and ينتقل. Because Taa and teh are close in pronounciation, what you see here is إدغام مثلين whereby the sounds are merged together. This can happen in the middle of a word or where the end of one word and the beginning of the next meet. Look at اِدَّخَرَ which is originally from ذخر which means to store for later. There is a verse in Surat Aal Imran on the seventh or eight page that uses that word. For an example of this happening in two words meeting, look at the top of the second page of Surat al Mursalat. So the name is indeed correct but the lettet teh ت has been absorbed by the Taa ط. Hope that helps. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Right...! A new thing I have learnt now. Thanks once again. —Шαмıq ☪ тαʟκ✍ @ 18:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sufi-Salafi relations article

How about a temporary removal fo the tags until you have time to check the article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:BoogaLouie, I have no problem with removal for now. I'll try to check the article too, perhaps tomorrow. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at Talk:Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal.
Message added 08:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You previously nominated this page for AFD. I have a strong suspicion that this article is a possible hoax. Please participate in the talk page. The Legend of Zorro 08:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at Forward Unto Dawn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

How would you react.....?

How would you react if I place [www.chees.spacesocket.com/?view=64855 that] pic to your userpage.94.137.251.86 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sidqi

I was wondering if you think this source on page 41 correctly describes Sidqi (a non-Sunni) as a Salafi? source Pass a Method talk 18:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Pass a Method, I've tried looking at that link three times now and searched on my own for the title and for the relevant page, I keep getting that "you reached your limit for previews" or whatever. What I am getting in the search is this line: "It is clear, however, that his views do not represent a sharp break with salafi ideology. The rejection of hadith as a source of authority was simply a new variation on an old salafi theme. Sidqi's article and the controversy it set off is also..." We can easily conclude that it's a false, if that is what you're referring to. What I don't know is how we deal with a reliable source which asserts a factually inaccurate claim. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nouman Ali Khan

Hi MezzoMezzo. Assalamu alaykum. I would be very grateful if you take a look at the Nouman Ali Khan page. I can't see any notability, but would like other editors' opinions. My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Walaikum as salam, I'm on it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Muslim speakers get deleted just because they're famous only among Muslims. Quite surprised to see the deletion of Nouman Ali Khan. NAK currently receives more searches on Google than even Hamza Yusuf - http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=nouman+ali+khan#q=nouman%20ali%20khan%2C%20hamza%20yusuf&cmpt=q

Talkback

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 15:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti*poke* 15:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MezzoMezzo. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 02:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti*poke* 02:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC

I believe it's time we can go ahead and take it to AN/I for discussion on a community ban. Dusti*poke* 15:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Mightn't it be prudent to shape what exactly it is that needs to happen at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Baboon43 first? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
We could do proposed solutions, if you'd like. I can help. Dusti*poke* 04:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Then Jerico

Dear MezzoMezzo, I hope you are well. I'll be very grateful if you can please help me keep the Then Jericopage neutral and referenced. One abusive and nasty editor -- whom has previously been blocked for sockpuppetry on this page -- keeps restoring unverified material. He curses and attacks me when I try. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering, since one of the pronouns for Sunni Muslims is "ahlu sunnah wal jama'ah", and since "jama'ah" is a derivitive of ijma, does this mean Sunni Muslims place a bigger emphasis on ijma over other interpretations such as qiyas and ijtihad? I've been looking at academic sources but they're quite ambiguous. Pass a Method talk 15:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:Pass a Method, actually jama'ah isn't derived from ijma', it's the other way around. The root past tense verb is ja ma 'a which means to gather or collect together. ijma' is the masdar (like an infinitive I guess, I hate the term "verbal noun") for the root ajma'a so there is an alif placed in front on the pattern af'ala. For example, dakhala means to enter but adkhala means to insert.
So jama'ah simply means a gathering of people and it doesn't relate to the word ijma', rather the word ijma' relates to gathering or collecting. Specifically, the term evolved as a response of whatever one wishes to call the majority (classical, traditional, orthodox, whatever) to qadariya and the like. So the majority called itself ahlus-sunnah, and others (qadariyya etc.) responded with "oh yeah? we're the real ahlus-sunnah" so it was expanded to "ahlus-sunnah wal-jama'ah" in reference to the hadith about the jama'ah. And hence all the migraine-causing terminologies and sects started up.
Your line of thinking does make sense though, as Shi'ite jurisprudence often places less stock in ijma', as does Ibadhite jurisprudence but linguistically the relationship between the two words is backwards. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your view wanted !

Dear brother, irrespective of your personal faith and conviction, whether WP:Reliable sources class Ahmadis as Muslims ? Jazakumullah. --Drali1954 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:Drali1954, it's not a question I can (or should) just answer off the top of my head. This would be better served by a collaborative effort to search through reliable sources on the topic. My expectation is that we will find the matter disputed, in which case the most neutral solution might be to mention all views and mention specifically who holds them, so that nobody is cast in a negative light but also that all views are represented. Starting a topic on Talk:Ahmadi and notifying the relevant projects would be a good idea as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


Thank you brother for a typically Wikipedian reply. But under the circumstances, that seems the right way. Jazahumullah. Regards.Drali1954 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi MezzoMezzo, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert any other type of edit - such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with - can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, use a manual edit summary instead of using the rollback tool. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck.

That's just my standard message to people I grant rollback rights to. In answer to your other question, yes, I do need to archive my talk page...more for its length that anything else! Thanks for the reminder, though. Best. Acalamari 11:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you use rollback to revert an editor's edits, it makes it clear that you do not believe that you are misusing it, if you put a template message on his/her talk page, telling him/her why he/she has been reverted.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
@User:Acalamari, here's a theoretical question. Let's say I find a clear cut instance of vandalism, but it was only one edit. It could be undone the traditional way since it's one edit, so is it preferable to use the undo function in that case? Or can I use rollback even for one edit if it's clearly vandalism? I didn't find this in a FAQ anywhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's an acceptable use of rollback; provided you're reverting vandalism, the quantity of edits you're reverting is irrelevant. Acalamari 07:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hassan al-Banna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton (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) 11:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Baboon43 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:Baboon43, letting users involved with an RFC/U and who previously participated isn't canvassing as explained at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Baboon43#Proposed_solutions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Brill

Hi, MezzoMezzo. My point about Brill was not meant to be a big deal -- it's just that around RSN there is a forgiveable tendency to fix on a few guaranteed reliable sources in an unreliable world. Sadly this has to be argued against: there is no perfection, even in the case of the New York Times, Oxford University Press, and E. J. Brill :) I think Brill is a great institution, and I still remember the fun I had in the bargain basement of their shop in Amsterdam no, Leiden of course (say 25 years ago) buying hundred-year-old unsold Brill publications at 1 or 2 guilders each. I used to see vast numbers of academic publications -- I used to be an academic librarian -- and that's how I know there's no perfection.

I didn't know their business model (I still don't really) but I could see the results: no publisher could make a profit from most of that stuff. Someone had to pay up front, be it a foundation, a university or an author. So, later, after I took up doctoral research, I wasn't surprised when I heard a professor say cattily to my Ph.D. supervisor (who hadn't yet got her dissertation published and was considering Brill) that Brill is a vanity publisher. Now she eventually published with Oxford University Press, and I think that probably meant she didn't pay anyone (and no one paid her either) but her department footed the bill for the illustrations. OUP's business model (again, I don't know it) will be rather different from Brill's in that (a) they have some kind of backing from their own university and (b) they publish a lot of popular stuff from which they make money.

Our mistake if we regard OUP and Brill as guaranteed RS publishers is that we forget the business models. OUP have published some dreadful stuff (e.g. from OUP New York, which is a commercial operation); Brill have published some books whose English is scarcely comprehensible and whose only nod towards peer-review is that a PhD resulted. And yet if OUP and Brill didn't exist the shelves of academic libraries would lack some of the world's very best best reference books. Andrew Dalby 09:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


SPI

Guys, I'm 99% certain that Zulfinder is Flagrantdelicto - it's the same manner of writing, the same ranting about Salafis and Wahhabis loving Muawiyah, the same pattern of writing a long paragraph followed by three or four revisions of the same paragraph...I really think an SPI ought to be opened before continuing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please open an SPI. Recommend you ask for "check user" - I very much doubt whether User:Flagrantdelicto is the first ID he/she used on Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
@User:Toddy1, do you suspect that you've encountered other accounts belonging to this same user in the past? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
One of the problems with people who abusively use sock-puppets and meat-puppets is that people on the receiving end of the abuse end up suspecting innocent people - particularly new users. This is why there is an SPI process. I have only used the process to deal with User:Kaz and his/her socks - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kaz/Archive.
If you think that you can make a case that Zulfindar is a sock, please use the SPI process. If you want me to comment and add to it when it is in the sandbox I will. I have shared your suspicion about Zulfindar from his/her first posting; but I said nothing at the time. It is interesting that you have independently come to the same conclusion.
Flagrantdelicto behaves similarly to Kaz, which is one of the reasons I would expect him/her to use socks. They did so many things the same, so why not this too. However Flagrantdelicto and Kaz are clearly different people; Kaz edited from southern England and south Wales, whilst Flagrantdelicto edited from Chicago, Illinois. Having lots of personality traits in common with someone else who was a sock-puppet user is not evidence though.
If you look at the bottom of my talk page you will see someone I suspect of being a sock of someone. But I do not have any evidence.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Information that might contribute to an SPI for Flagrantdelicto

You will notice that both IPs that he/she used were in Illinois, near Chicago: 75.150.223.177, 99.179.148.221. This is a good clue that the IPs in Pakistan used to make POV edits to Muawiyah and Yazid related articles are probably not Flagrantedelicto.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey @User:Toddy1, finally opened one up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flagrantdelicto. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MezzoMezzo/Archive_4&oldid=1146684100"