User talk:Msoamu/Archeive Page1

Challenge

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "challenge" on your user page, but I will remind you that this website is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. --Firi e n § 09:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barelwi

Please do not rewrite this page to your own point of view. As I mentioned above this is an encyclopedia - at the moment your actions combine those of a vandal (deleting information) with the argument you are trying to present. Please make your contributions - but make them in a way that adds to the information of others, rather than destroying that information. There are many resources available on how to write pages so that your edits are not removed. I suggest following these guidelines and rules, since ignoring them will result in reversion of your work.

Your contributions are welcome here, but so are those of others. --Firi e n § 13:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polite notice

Hi, re your edit here, please consider only putting forward constructive views as it appears to be a personal attack which is not allowed by the policy. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 13:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent article creation

A tag has been placed on Salat-o-Salam, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MezzoMezzo 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete anything, as I am just an editor; only Wikipedia administrators have the ability to delete pages; please review the official Wikipedia:Deletion policy. As for your accusations against me on my talk page and other pages, please review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. MezzoMezzo 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Please do not insert your own personal point of view into articles, as you did here and here. This is in violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. MezzoMezzo 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please review the official Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy; I do not own these articles and neither do you so please don't act as though i'm violating some sort of rights of yours by following the Wikipedia:Be bold editing guideline.

Second of all, the news articles are both expressly marked as opinion/comment columns and not objective fact; that Deobandis are hardliners and Barelwis are moderates is merely an opinion and while it can serve as an external links, it is a blatant violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy to base article content off of it.

Third of all, you these policies do need to be brought to your attention because not only do you seem unaware of them but you're also openly disregarding them. If you aren't willing to abide by the rules then your input may be disregarded.

Also, this is the second time you've trolled my talk page. You are welcome to post constructive commentary but if you launch personal attacks on me again you will be reported. You have been warned. MezzoMezzo 18:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that rather than defend your position you've resorted to edit warring and you need to review the Wikipedia:Edit war guideline and the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing behavioral guideline in regard to that. Additionally, you called me a Wahhabi in your edit summary which, as a derogatory term, constitutes a violation of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Please cease this behavior at once and review the official Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy as it is quite relevant here. MezzoMezzo 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Msoamu, regardless of whatever content disputes editors may fall into, we must refrain from derogatory name-calling as per WP:NPA; it doesn't help foster an atmosphere of collegial editing, and makes dispute resolution more difficult. thanks. ITAQALLAH 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It seems you and I got off to the wrong foot; I am glad that we can disagree politely with one another now. People will always have disagreements, but it's nice to log in to Wikipedia and find someone doing so in a respectful manner. Thanks for the help on improving the Barelwi and Deobandi articles so far, I look forward to hearing from you again. MezzoMezzo 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kanzul Iman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kanzul Iman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanzul Iman. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Kanzul Iman.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Kanzul Iman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gordonofcartoon 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help in Hazrat shahwilayt Article

As u have good Interest in Sunni and Sufi related Articles i need ur Help in keeping Hazrat Sharfuddin Shah Wilayat Sahab (R.A). Shabiha 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Help is needed

Your urgent help is needed in editing Barelwi article.Shabiha ^(t 11:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:AhleSunnat Wal Jamat Barelwi

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:AhleSunnat Wal Jamat Barelwi, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:AhleSunnat Wal Jamat Barelwi has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:AhleSunnat Wal Jamat Barelwi, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

You appear to have made some reverts lately on Barelwi. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. If you continue reverting, you risk being blocked from editing. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend

We are discussing merging the Wahhabism page with Mohammed Bin Abdel Wahab and/or Salafism as a way to reduce the impact of the use of this name which as you know is unfounded.

Please join us in the wahhabism discussion page.

I sometimes get the impression that this discussion is sometimes less about logic, reason, and truth then it is about stubbornness and cultural subjectivity. I am trying to calmly and logically convince them that the naming is nonsensical. I could use your help.

They seem to forget that many people think the naming is unfounded based on islamic science and Fiqh.

Regards and Salam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maulid image

Speedy deletion nomination of of File:Milad image.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Milad image.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

translated to Commons @: Собрание на празднике маулид в Керале (Индия). 25 апреля 2007.jpg

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:Milad image.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Zac Allan (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tawassul is NOT a major practice among Muslims.--71.102.116.218 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barelwi. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you copyedit your edits at Muslim Students' Organization of India?

Greetings, I saw you added some content at Muslim Students' Organization of India. However, the text you've inserted is severely in need of proofreading. Words that should not be capitalised are capitalised, spaces are not left after commas, etc. This is not so much an English fluency issue as just sloppiness; there needs to be a space after a period or somma, no space before a period or comma, and words should only be capitalised at the start of a sentence, or if proper nouns. Also note that the article needs more footnotes to outside sources, not just related or fansites. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:DawateIslami.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:DawateIslami.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

Greetings, given your interest on articles on Islam, please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Not that per WP:MOSISLAM, Muhammad is referred to simply as "Muhammad", other than the first occurrence of his name or where there are other Muhammads he could be confused with, when he is referred to as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad." At no point, except in direct quotes, does WP refer to him as "The Holy Prophet Muhammad" or similar. Ditto the Quran. Also, the term "Allah" is used only in direct quotes; where the article is speaking the term "God" is used, being the literal translation from Arabic.

Please bear these in mind. Also from looking at your recent edits, please brush up on the use of capital letters in English, and ensure you leave one space after each period, comma, or colon, and no spaces between footnotes. Currently you have a tendency to smash words together around punctuation, and to leave spaces between footnotes. Not trying to criticise, just to point out things you want to keep an eye out for while editing so that others don't have to copyedit, and so the articles remain tidy.

Hope you find this useful, let me know if you have any questions about style/formatting issues. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:In Solidarity with Palestinian People, Muslim Students Organization of India (MSO), organized Protest March against Israel on 23rd Nov 2012 at Jaipur, India.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:In Solidarity with Palestinian People, Muslim Students Organization of India (MSO), organized Protest March against Israel on 23rd Nov 2012 at Jaipur, India.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

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.

Muslim Students' Organization of India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Israeli, Media, M.P, Eid, Palestinian, Bodo and Digvijay Singh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding ongoing disputes in regard to content and conduct. The thread is Accusations of extremism.The discussion is about the topic Barelvi. Thank you. —MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Barelvi. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources

Hello, I'm MezzoMezzo. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Barelvi without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. 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) 03:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Actually You seems to be over smart.No one is supporting your POV on Barelvi Article and You are consistently inserting your unverifiable allegations in to the Article.You have regularly vandalized that Article.It seems You have certain Wahabi agenda to do so.You msut STOP from inserting your Non neutral ,Unverifiable allegations.Moreover there is totally consensus on the previous version since long.Thank.13:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Wahhabi

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Barelvi

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barelvi Page

I've been speaking things through with MezzoMezzo, and at the moment, he does seem the less guilty party, Msoamu. I am more than willing to try and discuss your side of the story as well, and see if we can find a consensus or a solution to this long running problem. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for mediation actually I was little bit aggressive in putting my points.I was just trying to show those edits which are with particular trend.Negative points and criticism is filled in the pages of an ideology to which you don't like.I have not seen any attempt to edit Barelvi Page and its associated pages with a positive mindset.No one is there to show the real Picture of the movement.Most of the editors who are neutral don't know the subject matter and remaining editors edit that page with a negative motive.I don't Know what is the solution of this genuine and continuous problem here on Wikipedia.I have always tried to put true information in the page.I am of the view that there must be a mechanism at least to identify motivated editors so that they may be stopped inserting regular POV.If You would like to know more specific points about this trend I will show you from the history.
- I am always ready to cooperate with you and other neutral editors and I request you to edit that Page with in depth analysis of that movement.I am ready to provide you the original and secondary sources as well as research done by various national and International Scholars.

Regarding mezzomezzo I am of the view that his whole package of recent editing is filled with baseless allegations.

- - Would You like to read opinions of various editors here [1]

and here [2] Msoamu (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to pretend I have the slightest idea about Barelvi, or any religious group (for want of a better term) - this is why I am neutral. I suggest you read my summary of the dispute on my talk page, take note of what I've said, and then come back here and discuss it with me. By the way, I opened a section on the Barelvi talk page for a discussion about the content - this is to be a no personal attacks zone (which includes accusations of bias, COI or similar things), with discussion solely based on content, which will need reliable sources to back it up. As to the link provided, I would like to note that this does indeed show that MezzoMezzo can be involved in a calm conversation about his edits, and come to a consensus with other editors, which is something that has been sorely lacking from your side. To me, Klaksonn's comment is WAY out of line, and indeed that editor has been indefinitely blocked for his personal attacks and disruptive editing (which was actually his second indefinite block): see here[3] for evidence. Please don't try and continue with allegations made against MezzoMezzo, as I only see this worsening the situation (as I said before, I've analysed the situation based on my own research, not on evidence necessarily provided by either party). I'd like to remind you I'm not an admin, and I'm certainly not infallible, I just wish to see an end to a nearly 6-year-old dispute. If we sort out Barelvi first, then we can continue the conversations about the other articles afterwards. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barelvi

Come on, man. We won't be able to have a complete discussion without you. You don't have to pretend to like me personally, and be sure that I won't do the same. But this website is held up by volunteer editors, and the fact that you're willing to give up your time ultimately helps the encyclopedia, even if we don't always agree. If you see this, then please come back and help us resolve all disputes so we can all move on and focus on whatever other articles interest us as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering why you hadn't decided to join the debate, Msoamu, as I did invite you to do so. As MezzoMezzo states, we need opinions from all sides, because we can then build a new, consensus-decided article, which will end this edit war once and for all, hopefully. :) Lukeno94 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh so much courtesy towards me,:).Be Confirm that I can even personally like you but not your views.I was little bit busy.I will surely give my opinion on the current topic on Barelvi Page and at other Pages. Luken,I appreciate you that you are taking pain to resolve this recent unwarranted dispute.I will cooperate.Msoamu (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased by the improved attitudes you've shown to each other already, I hope that this doesn't deteriorate again - and it shows that you should've gone for mediation a long, long time ago (I know you didn't this time, I involved myself). Lets work on Barelvi first, and when that's sorted, move on to Wahabi, or wherever else. :) Lukeno94 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.Msoamu (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Msoamu. You have new messages at Andyjsmith's talk page.
Message added 10:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

andy (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]