A tag has been placed on
Muslimmatters, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on
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. Pan Dan 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Abureem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Pan Dan 22:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions. Unfortunately Muslimmatters didn't conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles and was deleted. However, please do not be disheartened. Please continue to edit Wikipedia, as you did to William Rodriguez. For help, see Help:Contents. To find out what will probably be deleted, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks, and if you have any questions, please ask them on my user talk page. To do this, click on my name (just after this sentence) and click discussion at the top and then the (+) button at the top. Pan Dan 22:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
When commenting in AfD discussions, just remember to add your opinion (unless it's a response to someone else's comment) at the bottom of the discussion, rather than at the top. I've moved your comment on Jihad Watch accordingly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Wahhabism. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a
consensus among editors.
- Now you appear to be a new user, so I will assume good faith & I will not recommend that you be blocked- but technically you have broken the three revert rule. Four edits in a 24 hour period: [1] [2] [3] [4].
Consider this your first warning. Please review WP:3RR. If you break the policy again, you will be blocked. If you are a sockpuppet of His excellency we will find out, and then you will really be blocked. -- ProtectWomen 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What or who is "His excellency"?? And I have added my concerns on talk-wahhabism. Obviously your own history of editing on wikipedia does not make you a very objective arbitrator in this case anyway. Abureem 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
--
ProtectWomen 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my talk page, and sorry it's taken me so long to respond (I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days).
I took a look at the recent history of the article. My thoughts (for what they're worth) are these: Any information or point of view that can be found in reliable, published sources is OK to put in a Wikipedia article; all (published) points of view should be represented in a Wikipedia article; and neologisms should not be used in a Wikipedia article. The relevant policies/guidelines are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.
I made a small edit to the article removing the neologism Islamofascist and adding some sources.
Don't forget to always use talk pages (such as Talk:Wahhabism) to discuss points of disagreement with other editors, instead of continually reverting their edits. Also you might want to read the policies/guidelines I listed above.
Hope this helps, if not feel free to ask me anything else.
Regards, Pan Dan 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Abureem, could you take a quick look at Talk:Wahhabism and offer your opinion on the 'Fading Definition' section? We are hoping for some consensus to finish off an edit. Peace, Ashmoo 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC) <\p>
Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of Saudi Arabia related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the Saudi Arabian WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) Ammar ( Talk - Don't Talk) 08:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Morton and striver
I removed the message from Morton Devonshire. Morton Devonshire is obviously nuts.. he removed my edits stating the reason "tbeatty is always right". I wouldn't worry about it. :D From spatchula 77.98.177.54 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please be careful not to violate the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. We can take our time and discuss it on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you've violated the three revert rule. Please self-revert and discuss disputed points on talk. Proabivouac 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:Undercover Mosque. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Sefringle
Talk 00:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am not a Wiki amateur, so be careful of who you threaten. The comments were valid and based on your vandalism of the article. I reworded it to make it object based.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Abureem (
talk •
contribs)
- Abureem, i would invite you to take a look at WP:EQ, WP:3RR, and WP:5P. this is just to help ensure that editing on Undercover Mosque goes smoothly, despite the understandably contentious nature of the subject. thanks. ITAQALLAH 19:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Salam 'alaikum, I have noticed that you've been helping to defend the Barelwi article from some recurring vandalism by anonymous users. I've seen this before, and it looks like sockpuppet activity to me. The article has been on my watch list for a while due to stuff like this, so i'll help out against that too. Your continued vigilance would be much appreciated, as I know what anons/sockpuppets try to do a lot is switch IPs to push one user toward a 3RR violation and get their way without discussion. MezzoMezzo 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there are others that you are watching, let me know... I can double-team you.... wasalam Abureem 13:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Jazak Allah khair for the help ak, this person has been active on both the Barelwi and Deobandi articles as of late. She's actually just reverting and refusing to discuss despite me having wanred her numerous times, and i'm starting to think that your suggestion might be good. Any idea where I should take it from here? MezzoMezzo 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Yasir Qadhi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Abureem, this is not your image, you most definiotely did not take that photo. That photo was done by OPeace TV photographers in Mumbai, India 2007. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
218.185.10.126 (
talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Abureem, this photo is not yours, you did not take it. Please remove your claim from it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.10.126 ( talk) 01:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yasir Qadhi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --— ξ xplicit 07:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)