Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to [[:Barelvi, Ahmad Raza, Hadith of Najd]], you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ScholarM (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:NightWolf1223, thank you for the notifications; I wasn’t aware that I’d been mentioned on those. User:ScholarM, I made edits in good faith and faced no opposition aside from you reverting without explanation. I suggest you review WP:OWN and focus on the edits rather than the personalities involved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to your accusation
Mezzo, are you stalking me ? You removed the content with valid sources from number of articles, did you start discussion anywhere? You only came to talk pages after you were forced to do so by other editors. Even before that, i initiated discussion at Ahle Sunnat Movement page where you replied several days later. I want to engage knowledgeable editors so a biased editing may be stopped. More over, you have been reverted by other editors and you are in edit war. Please learn to follow Wikipedia editing in good faith see WP:DGF. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. ScholarM (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding on your talk page since you’re technically replying to my comment there (and you also responded in both places). MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you have reverted my edits on Barelvi by saying "reply on talk page first", but I want to make you aware that I had already used the article's talk page for my various edits in past and what you are reverting my that very old edits not the new one. Youbat (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Barelvi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk12:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bishonen, my apologies, and I'll cease for now. However, I'd like to open an SPI on the user given previous evidence as well as comments by others. I'm fairly certain that this is ScholarM trying to evade the topic ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have good evidence, that's a good idea, MezzoMezzo. Also, have you considered activating Wikipedia e-mail through your preferences? Bishonen | tålk12:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I'll put a case together, and again User:Bishonen, my apologies for reverting back and forth (though in my defense, I was planning to stop after the third time per WP:3RR...I know that doesn't excuse the behavior, I'm just mentioning my intention not to cross policy red lines). As for email, then I'm scared to do so because of the potential for hate mail...I've been insulted a lot on here, outed at least once, a victim of repeated coordinated sock/meat farms, and have a lot of people gunning for me. Do you think it would be safe to do so? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's safe all right, in the sense that nobody will get your e-mail address or other details through mailing you via that service, as long as you don't reply. An option if you're worried about being harassed by hate mail would be to enable the function, but without permission for other users to contact you. (You would still be able to contact them.) That's limiting, certainly, and not common, but I know users who prefer it. Bishonen | tålk14:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Barnstar
The Neutral Barnstar
The Neutral Barnstar may be awarded to editors that have fixed articles that did not adhere to WP:NPOV. Thank you for your good efforts in trying to make Barelvi's article as neutral as possible. Please keep it up!TheEagle107 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If you have trouble with a Swedish source, you know who to ask.
On the "July 2021" thread above, I don't have e-mail enabled either, though sometimes I have briefly activated it when asked, for example to get some source-text. My default position is that anything on WP I do should be able to be dealt with on WP. And while I haven't had your on-WP problems, with 10+ WP-years, stuff happens, and I don't want that in my inbox either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, unfortunate stuff does tend to happen, but your solution - to keep WP stuff on WP - is the best one, I think. And thank you for the offer; I'll keep you in mind when Swedish sources come up.
BTW, my one research effort for the article was to look up "Barelvi Islam" in google books. The first book in the search results and apparently the only one devoted to Barelvi history is Syncretic Islam. As you can see the author seems to prefer use of Ahl-e-Sunnat, or at least use the term alot. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dang Louis, I had no idea it was you when I first responded at the Barelvi talk page. Nice to see that you're still around; a lot of the 10+ crowd has disappeared with time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:ExcellentWheatFarmer, I'm flattered too much, but I'm also happy that someone else took notice and perhaps benefitted from the article. Warhammer, as a subject area, really needs a lot of attention and effort here on Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Dan arndt (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Azhari until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kais Dukes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
