I would like to thank you for your patience in an issue which, I am sure, can be annoying to deal with repeatedly. Of course, my edits may be inappropriate, and I never meant to insinuate that the issue was my edits vs. someone else's; I just want some civility and an end to what I feel has been seven years of POV pushing. This absolutely doesn't rule out that some of my own edits could be incorrect or inappropriate, though they were all in good faith and attempts to better represent sources. I hope that in the future, despite your busy schedule, you will still be able to lend a third party view on such issues. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 06:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() You are invited to join
WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
---|
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
![]() |
Teahouse First Birthday Badge |
Awarded to everyone who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
Hello, Pass a Method. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Book of Leviticus.The discussion is about the topic Book of Leviticus. Thank you. - Mr X 03:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
G'day. Saw your post to my talkpage the other day. I think the wording as it was should have applied to this particular situation. However, the general view seems to be that if one has enough friends that can be contacted offline, things like "consider" and "should" and most of the editing policy and so on don't apply. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop trying to insert the "devil" quote into the Pope Francis article. First off the source you are using doesn't meet RS standards for the translation, second, the actual quote is already in the article from a source that is reliable. Marauder40 ( talk) 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you must have seen it, since it came up on the diff - a very long comment in the article about not adding items to the list. I don't know who inserted it, or when, but it seems that we should abide by it while it remains. St Anselm ( talk) 23:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please, let's work towards consensus here. You've started an RfC, which means we may get some more people's opinions, but you shouldn't add the material back in until we've achieved consensus, as I've said a couple of times. Please read WP:STATUSQUO. St Anselm ( talk) 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interfaith dialog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jains ( 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) 20:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Just a small remark: it's better to wait until an AfD is finished before moving an article that is still being discussed. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Novusuna. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Homosexuality because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Novusuna (
talk) 16:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as I understand they were often members of organized religions, but embraced some aspects of deism, such as submitting religious belief to rational analysis, which has led them to be categorized by some authors as deists. I tried to take your advice on partial reverts...For instance, on biographies where you added deism as the religion, I tried to correct the info to represent what the source actually said, or I added info about their main religions that you failed to mention. I also started a discussion at WT:WikiProject United States History where I hope you'll comment if you're not satisfied with my edits. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
With my side project: User:Jenova20/List of suggested causes of homosexuality. Can you spare any Pass a Method? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I saw you had interactions with one of these socks, so I thought you deserved to know about all of their accounts.
[1]. I'm fairly certain more are roaming free now.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, PaM. Well, I can see Keted6 is suspiciously savvy for a new user, but SPI isn't really any use unless you have a notion whose sock they might be. Have you? Because I don't. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC).
Hi! I noticed you moved my comment to the "other users" section at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keted6. Just wondering, why is that? I've understood from the instructions that admins patrolling SPI should write in the last section unless they're commenting as involved users. Or is there something I've missed here? Jafeluv ( talk) 09:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rafida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bakri ( 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) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about on my page? -- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 12:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Mr pass a method my edit it totally nutral and also depended upon a reliable source.dont insert your WP:OR
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. [1]
you are making this article less informative. Dil e Muslim talk 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
mr mezzomezzo havent you read the source.the source is oxford dictionary of religion and it is clearly written on it that souce that alhesunnat wa jamaah is commonly known as barelvi.i am pasting that.and for your information my edit is according to nutral point of view.see me sentence.even its you who is making less informative. Dil e Muslim talk 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
well i am copying discussion to page Sunni islam to discus. Dil e Muslim talk 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You left a note on my talk page saying you'd nominated the category "Sunni Muslims" for deletion, and that I should see "the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page". But there is no such entry there, and it looks like you didn't actually nominate the category for deletion at all. What were you trying to do? – Quadell ( talk) 13:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia a safe place to edit for legitimate editors. - Mr X 12:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
We've been outed, apparently. Go check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MezzoMezzo and try not to wet your pants from laughing so hard. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 07:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here. Casprings ( talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
why do u think the coastline is redundant? Pass a Method talk 09:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree partially with you that in some form Israel should be mentioned in the infobox unilateral edits are not appreciated. Yes, verifiability is a criteria, but when the issue is disputed by a number of editors no edit can be made until the issue is resolved and consensus is reached so there wouldn't be an edit war, that's Wikipedia policy. I will not revert you again because of the revert ban on the articles page, but someone else will revert you like they did in the past and I am giving you a friendly advice to resolve the issue in a compromising manner on the talk page before conducting unilateral edits. But in my personal opinion I think you have added Israel in an appropriate format to the infobox so good work. Cheers! :) EkoGraf ( talk) 20:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I responded at Talk:Kutub al-Sittah. Specifically, I'm wondering if there's some way we can list it to elicit feedback from more than just the two of us. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pass, thank you for giving attention to my edits, I did not understand, why my edits on Ahmadiyya View about Israel, were reverted. Well what is exactly incorrect (materially and formally) in the edit I made? I had tried to improve and compliment the Article. Sincerely -- ڈاکٹر محمد علی ( talk) 06:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
alanyst 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you deleted a lot of referenced content from the Islam page. Is there a reason for the removal of the referenced content. Do you want some changes. What was the reason? -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings!
Seeing that you've edited the article on Gainesville on Wikipedia, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,.
If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.
Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio ( talk) 20:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: your 2 Level 3 Warnings to this new user... Since they're new (started editing May 30th), maybe they don't know how to search the article's talk page archives for the previous Deist discussions (since they don't appear on the page as it is seen by most readers). I have posted on their talk page about the matter and am asking you to consider reverting your 2 Level 3s to a Welcome/Level 1 and a Level 2. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 19:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You left a message on my page saying:
"The books followed by the Twelver Shi'a were written by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (864- 941), Ibn Babawayh (923-991), and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274)."
How is this original research. If you go to those authors pages it shows you that these books are followed by the Shia. It is common knowledge. What is your objection. Can you be more specific. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
FutureTrillionaire (
talk) 16:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
FutureTrillionaire (
talk) 16:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be
blocked from editing.
FutureTrillionaire (
talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this is the double standards. I dont have any problem to put Shia Islam on the infobox, but then I see that in other articles about other factions of the Syrian civil war other users try (and unfortunately finally could) to avoid putting the ideology. Examples? Liwaa al-Umma, a sunni jihadist group according to sources, but some users from what I called the "Pro-Arab Spring or Islamist Winter but only In Libya or Syria lobby" there are trying to avoid that fact. Perhaps I look so rude and radical to some, but I dont mind. Regards,-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mosques, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian ( 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) 11:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Fai zan 17:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
We had a fairly prolonged discussion on the talk page about this wording, and the consensus came out that the "almost universal" phrasing was right. The problem is that there is a large group that views the belief that Muhammad was the last prophet as being a part of the definition of being Muslim and think the phrasing should just be "Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last prophet". There are a lot of reliable sources that do just that. All of these "most people that consider themselves to be Muslim" phrasings are significantly different than what can be found in reliable sources and significantly overstate the controversy, as the actual percentage seems to be about 99%.— Kww( talk) 17:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to inquire about this edit. All Sunni schools of law allow Ijtihad, they just differ about how - for Shafi'is it's Qiyas, Malikis use Istislah and qiyas, Hanafis use qiyas and Istihsan, and so forth. Perhaps you could qualify the statement a bit more clearly as a reader new to the subject might take from the phrase that other Sunnis don't allow ijtihad. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Quranism may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
But what did you mean by not necessarily? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 12:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for asking but I may politely decline because first of all I don't have much time to spare & secondly we are not on the same page. I have tried to communicate with the user some time back but most of the time the user ignores or tries to proof that he has more knowledge, experience, etc in related field and he is sort of authority (may be he actually is a research scholar or something) so free to make his judgments and draw inferences based on primary sources, many have tried to explain to the user that at WP it amounts to the violation of policy WP:OR but to no avail.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 09:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early scholars of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ages ( 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) 11:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pass a Method. I don't think ibn Abbas should be included in the Notable Quranists section. Not only was he not notable for his opposition to hadith (although like most early Muslims, he probably did follow only the Quran), later hadith fabricaters posthumously attributed countless hadiths to him (like the "hadith of the pen and paper" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Allah_ibn_Abbas#Muhammad.27s_statement and the "hadith of stoning", both ironically involving Umar who was an outspoken opponent of hadith). In his book "The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period," a non-Muslim scholar, Herbert Berg, suggested that most if not all the hadith/tafsir attributed to ibn Abbas was false. A Muslim scholar, Ibrahim Mustafa, has also questioned the hadith and tafsir attributed to him:
"Again the corruption of Bukhary appears in his acceptance of children who witnessed the Prophet as Sahaba, and he accepted their narration of Hadiths despite the fact that they were too little to realize what was going on at the time. Bukhary had many hadiths narrated by Abdullah Ibn Abbas who was a young child during the Prophet's life. He was never documented to accompany the Prophet as one of the Sahaba, but Bukhary made him one. Other children who narrated hadiths and accepted by Bukhary are Al-Nuaman Ibn Basheer (8 years old), Mahmoud Ibn Al-Rabee (5 years), Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubeer (9 years), Al-Hussein Ibn Ali (7 years), Al-Hassan Ibn Ali ( 8 years), Omar Ibn Aby Muslima ( 9 years)......etc. Who would accept to take his religion from these children ??!!!!!
"Because Bukhary identified himself with the Abbasyeen and politically was against the Talibeen (followers of Ali Ibn Abu-Talib), he gave in his book many pages to the hadiths of Abdullah Ibn Abbas, the grandfather of the Abbasyeens with whom Bukhary identified. Here we witness politics influencing what hadiths to report and what to omit (those praising Ali Ibn Abu Talib). Some of the Hadiths narrated by Ibn Abbas contradict the laws of the Quran , e.g. the laws of inheritance. To witness the political corruption of Bukhary in reporting hadiths that would serve his views and please his masters (Abbasyeen then) is to witness the corruption that God described 6:112-113 in action."
http://submission.org/Corruption_of_Religion.html
Melwood19 ( talk) 15:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Salutations, I'm confused whether to put Islam/Din-i-Ilahi or Din-i-Ilahi or just Islam in the Akbar article page infobox? From what I've read, it is clear that he was originally a not orthodox muslim and later founded Din-i-lahi which he followed? What do you think? Just Din-i-lahi seems the way to go, but at the same time, not many consider it a religion. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 07:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mother, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clone ( 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) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for your patience in an issue which, I am sure, can be annoying to deal with repeatedly. Of course, my edits may be inappropriate, and I never meant to insinuate that the issue was my edits vs. someone else's; I just want some civility and an end to what I feel has been seven years of POV pushing. This absolutely doesn't rule out that some of my own edits could be incorrect or inappropriate, though they were all in good faith and attempts to better represent sources. I hope that in the future, despite your busy schedule, you will still be able to lend a third party view on such issues. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 06:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() You are invited to join
WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
---|
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
![]() |
Teahouse First Birthday Badge |
Awarded to everyone who participated in the
Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. |
Hello, Pass a Method. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Book of Leviticus.The discussion is about the topic Book of Leviticus. Thank you. - Mr X 03:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
G'day. Saw your post to my talkpage the other day. I think the wording as it was should have applied to this particular situation. However, the general view seems to be that if one has enough friends that can be contacted offline, things like "consider" and "should" and most of the editing policy and so on don't apply. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop trying to insert the "devil" quote into the Pope Francis article. First off the source you are using doesn't meet RS standards for the translation, second, the actual quote is already in the article from a source that is reliable. Marauder40 ( talk) 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you must have seen it, since it came up on the diff - a very long comment in the article about not adding items to the list. I don't know who inserted it, or when, but it seems that we should abide by it while it remains. St Anselm ( talk) 23:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please, let's work towards consensus here. You've started an RfC, which means we may get some more people's opinions, but you shouldn't add the material back in until we've achieved consensus, as I've said a couple of times. Please read WP:STATUSQUO. St Anselm ( talk) 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interfaith dialog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jains ( 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) 20:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Just a small remark: it's better to wait until an AfD is finished before moving an article that is still being discussed. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Pass a Method/Userbox/Motherfucker during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Novusuna. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Homosexuality because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
Novusuna (
talk) 16:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as I understand they were often members of organized religions, but embraced some aspects of deism, such as submitting religious belief to rational analysis, which has led them to be categorized by some authors as deists. I tried to take your advice on partial reverts...For instance, on biographies where you added deism as the religion, I tried to correct the info to represent what the source actually said, or I added info about their main religions that you failed to mention. I also started a discussion at WT:WikiProject United States History where I hope you'll comment if you're not satisfied with my edits. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
With my side project: User:Jenova20/List of suggested causes of homosexuality. Can you spare any Pass a Method? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I saw you had interactions with one of these socks, so I thought you deserved to know about all of their accounts.
[1]. I'm fairly certain more are roaming free now.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, PaM. Well, I can see Keted6 is suspiciously savvy for a new user, but SPI isn't really any use unless you have a notion whose sock they might be. Have you? Because I don't. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC).
Hi! I noticed you moved my comment to the "other users" section at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keted6. Just wondering, why is that? I've understood from the instructions that admins patrolling SPI should write in the last section unless they're commenting as involved users. Or is there something I've missed here? Jafeluv ( talk) 09:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rafida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bakri ( 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) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about on my page? -- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 12:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Mr pass a method my edit it totally nutral and also depended upon a reliable source.dont insert your WP:OR
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. [1]
you are making this article less informative. Dil e Muslim talk 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
mr mezzomezzo havent you read the source.the source is oxford dictionary of religion and it is clearly written on it that souce that alhesunnat wa jamaah is commonly known as barelvi.i am pasting that.and for your information my edit is according to nutral point of view.see me sentence.even its you who is making less informative. Dil e Muslim talk 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
well i am copying discussion to page Sunni islam to discus. Dil e Muslim talk 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You left a note on my talk page saying you'd nominated the category "Sunni Muslims" for deletion, and that I should see "the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page". But there is no such entry there, and it looks like you didn't actually nominate the category for deletion at all. What were you trying to do? – Quadell ( talk) 13:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia a safe place to edit for legitimate editors. - Mr X 12:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
We've been outed, apparently. Go check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MezzoMezzo and try not to wet your pants from laughing so hard. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 07:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here. Casprings ( talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
why do u think the coastline is redundant? Pass a Method talk 09:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree partially with you that in some form Israel should be mentioned in the infobox unilateral edits are not appreciated. Yes, verifiability is a criteria, but when the issue is disputed by a number of editors no edit can be made until the issue is resolved and consensus is reached so there wouldn't be an edit war, that's Wikipedia policy. I will not revert you again because of the revert ban on the articles page, but someone else will revert you like they did in the past and I am giving you a friendly advice to resolve the issue in a compromising manner on the talk page before conducting unilateral edits. But in my personal opinion I think you have added Israel in an appropriate format to the infobox so good work. Cheers! :) EkoGraf ( talk) 20:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I responded at Talk:Kutub al-Sittah. Specifically, I'm wondering if there's some way we can list it to elicit feedback from more than just the two of us. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pass, thank you for giving attention to my edits, I did not understand, why my edits on Ahmadiyya View about Israel, were reverted. Well what is exactly incorrect (materially and formally) in the edit I made? I had tried to improve and compliment the Article. Sincerely -- ڈاکٹر محمد علی ( talk) 06:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
alanyst 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you deleted a lot of referenced content from the Islam page. Is there a reason for the removal of the referenced content. Do you want some changes. What was the reason? -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings!
Seeing that you've edited the article on Gainesville on Wikipedia, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,.
If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.
Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio ( talk) 20:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: your 2 Level 3 Warnings to this new user... Since they're new (started editing May 30th), maybe they don't know how to search the article's talk page archives for the previous Deist discussions (since they don't appear on the page as it is seen by most readers). I have posted on their talk page about the matter and am asking you to consider reverting your 2 Level 3s to a Welcome/Level 1 and a Level 2. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 19:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You left a message on my page saying:
"The books followed by the Twelver Shi'a were written by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (864- 941), Ibn Babawayh (923-991), and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274)."
How is this original research. If you go to those authors pages it shows you that these books are followed by the Shia. It is common knowledge. What is your objection. Can you be more specific. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
FutureTrillionaire (
talk) 16:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
FutureTrillionaire (
talk) 16:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be
blocked from editing.
FutureTrillionaire (
talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this is the double standards. I dont have any problem to put Shia Islam on the infobox, but then I see that in other articles about other factions of the Syrian civil war other users try (and unfortunately finally could) to avoid putting the ideology. Examples? Liwaa al-Umma, a sunni jihadist group according to sources, but some users from what I called the "Pro-Arab Spring or Islamist Winter but only In Libya or Syria lobby" there are trying to avoid that fact. Perhaps I look so rude and radical to some, but I dont mind. Regards,-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mosques, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian ( 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) 11:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Fai zan 17:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
We had a fairly prolonged discussion on the talk page about this wording, and the consensus came out that the "almost universal" phrasing was right. The problem is that there is a large group that views the belief that Muhammad was the last prophet as being a part of the definition of being Muslim and think the phrasing should just be "Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last prophet". There are a lot of reliable sources that do just that. All of these "most people that consider themselves to be Muslim" phrasings are significantly different than what can be found in reliable sources and significantly overstate the controversy, as the actual percentage seems to be about 99%.— Kww( talk) 17:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to inquire about this edit. All Sunni schools of law allow Ijtihad, they just differ about how - for Shafi'is it's Qiyas, Malikis use Istislah and qiyas, Hanafis use qiyas and Istihsan, and so forth. Perhaps you could qualify the statement a bit more clearly as a reader new to the subject might take from the phrase that other Sunnis don't allow ijtihad. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Quranism may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
But what did you mean by not necessarily? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 12:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for asking but I may politely decline because first of all I don't have much time to spare & secondly we are not on the same page. I have tried to communicate with the user some time back but most of the time the user ignores or tries to proof that he has more knowledge, experience, etc in related field and he is sort of authority (may be he actually is a research scholar or something) so free to make his judgments and draw inferences based on primary sources, many have tried to explain to the user that at WP it amounts to the violation of policy WP:OR but to no avail.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 09:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early scholars of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ages ( 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) 11:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pass a Method. I don't think ibn Abbas should be included in the Notable Quranists section. Not only was he not notable for his opposition to hadith (although like most early Muslims, he probably did follow only the Quran), later hadith fabricaters posthumously attributed countless hadiths to him (like the "hadith of the pen and paper" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Allah_ibn_Abbas#Muhammad.27s_statement and the "hadith of stoning", both ironically involving Umar who was an outspoken opponent of hadith). In his book "The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period," a non-Muslim scholar, Herbert Berg, suggested that most if not all the hadith/tafsir attributed to ibn Abbas was false. A Muslim scholar, Ibrahim Mustafa, has also questioned the hadith and tafsir attributed to him:
"Again the corruption of Bukhary appears in his acceptance of children who witnessed the Prophet as Sahaba, and he accepted their narration of Hadiths despite the fact that they were too little to realize what was going on at the time. Bukhary had many hadiths narrated by Abdullah Ibn Abbas who was a young child during the Prophet's life. He was never documented to accompany the Prophet as one of the Sahaba, but Bukhary made him one. Other children who narrated hadiths and accepted by Bukhary are Al-Nuaman Ibn Basheer (8 years old), Mahmoud Ibn Al-Rabee (5 years), Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubeer (9 years), Al-Hussein Ibn Ali (7 years), Al-Hassan Ibn Ali ( 8 years), Omar Ibn Aby Muslima ( 9 years)......etc. Who would accept to take his religion from these children ??!!!!!
"Because Bukhary identified himself with the Abbasyeen and politically was against the Talibeen (followers of Ali Ibn Abu-Talib), he gave in his book many pages to the hadiths of Abdullah Ibn Abbas, the grandfather of the Abbasyeens with whom Bukhary identified. Here we witness politics influencing what hadiths to report and what to omit (those praising Ali Ibn Abu Talib). Some of the Hadiths narrated by Ibn Abbas contradict the laws of the Quran , e.g. the laws of inheritance. To witness the political corruption of Bukhary in reporting hadiths that would serve his views and please his masters (Abbasyeen then) is to witness the corruption that God described 6:112-113 in action."
http://submission.org/Corruption_of_Religion.html
Melwood19 ( talk) 15:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Salutations, I'm confused whether to put Islam/Din-i-Ilahi or Din-i-Ilahi or just Islam in the Akbar article page infobox? From what I've read, it is clear that he was originally a not orthodox muslim and later founded Din-i-lahi which he followed? What do you think? Just Din-i-lahi seems the way to go, but at the same time, not many consider it a religion. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 07:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mother, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clone ( 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) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)