Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Athari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibn al-Jawzi (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) 09:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Ghazali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nawawi (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) 09:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taqi al-Din al-Subki, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, I noticed that you and User:Ithinkicahn have had a number of disagreements about the Said Nursi page. It might be a good idea for you guys to go the route of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to solve it - when there are outside mediators, things get sorted out rather well. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is also a good place to ask for what steps to take. (Note: I can't mediate the dispute myself due to time constraints. I just thought I would give the suggestion.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have been rather busy of late, but might go down this route in the future.RookTaker (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you RookTaker for your effort in improving the article on Said Nursi and keeping ill-intentions away from getting their inputs into the article. I am not very well versed in Wikipedia's style and policies of writing articles nor have time to do that. It is very pleasant to see somebody taking on this task especially on the article of Said Nursi. Please let me know if you would be interested in a project to improve the article in the future. Again, special thanks rinduzahid^(talk) 18:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words @Mpolat:. I would certainly be interested in improving the Said Nursi article in the future. If you are able to suggest any academic works on Said Nursi that would be much appreciated. RookTaker (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

salam Alikom My dear brother .. If you were Ash'ari I respect that.. But.. I hate the man a bigot When I put the references he does deletes as if decision in his hand Please.. tempered anger towards the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.. but if you have convincing excuse.. I am sorry.. I will accept your excuse my regards Tamim506 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please engage in the talk page of the article on Ibn Taymiyyah if you disagree with my edits. Further, please do not refer to me as a bigot. I was genuinely seeking reliable references for the claim that the Theory of Relativity was a notable idea of Ibn Taymiyyah or that Ibn Taymiyyah influenced the individuals you mentioned. It seems far-fetched. I am happy for you to prove me wrong however using reliable sources as per wikipedia guidelines.RookTaker (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry because maybe I angered you but please how convinced you through my ref ?? I swear to you that my ref is reliable and from sources and Arab Studies like Compilation of Fatawa for Ibn Taymiyyah "Majmoo' al-Fatawa or Majmu' al-Fatawa" please if you can help please help me therein..Tamim506 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claim I can't use a personal webpage for reference if the author claims fanatical views according to your POV. So what is your POV on Edip Yüksel? His Wikipedia article is referenced by his webpage. Kavas (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the talk page of Bayandir.RookTaker (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibn Kathir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nawawi (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) 08:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RookTaker, I hope you are well. Sorry to ask, but could you please have a look at the page Asad Q. Ahmed and its talk page. Ashwak786 seems to want to consider this very imperfect page to be perfect and edit-proof. Thanks so much. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorgeCustersSabre. I am well thanks and hope you are too. I have never heard of Asad Q. Ahmed before. However, I will endeavour to improve the page over the next few days (if possible). RookTaker (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much RookTaker. You'll see that the page had various templates and citation tags, but this one editor keeps removing them without addressing the issues. My regards and wishes of peace, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RootTaker, If you do the same with other similar articles, then I will accept your intervention. As it stands, I have provided plenty of citations, but you are not desisting. This seems to be a personal agenda of yours and GeorgeCusters. Here are examples: Intisar Rabb, Jonathan A C Brown, Asifa Quraishi, etc. I am happy that all these people are represented. But all should be represented equally. Use equal standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwak786 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You recently reverted my changes to this article claiming that the sources were un-reliable.

I have a couple of comments:

1. In current state, article is really a one liner. This is a famous book in most muslim countries. I have a general complaint with wikipedia that editors see things only in the light of knowledge that they have. If you don't know about this, ask for more references (which some editors do by adding a tag at the top of the article asking for referneces). Reverting the change doesn't make much sense.

2. Secondly, i have added information about the translations of this book and background information. Sources quoted were actually those translations. What other proof would be sufficient to tell people that translations exist other than referencing actual translations. It seems as if you did not open those source locations for verification. Also, I don't see any problem with mentioning who the publishers of this book are. I don't work for them and i have mentioned more than one. How is this going to be promotional. I have serious doubts.

This article needs to improve gradually and I believe this revision is hindering that. Future editors will need to start again from square A rather than building upon available information.

I had similar issue with another article 'Tariq Jameel'. He is a person who has 100s of sites dedicated to him, thousands of videos on youtube from various sources, coverage on TV and thousands of followers world-wide. Due to lack of information with the editor, changes were reverted back! If a youtube video presents news reports from tv or a gathering showing thousands of people, how can this be unreliable. A single person standing and promoting his product is definitely not acceptable but this blanket rule on clear proofs is strange. I would request you to consider this policy and consider further development of editors so that they should not just look at the name of website but at contents if they really see value in reverting changes which other people spend their precious time on. e i Kind Regards, Nabeel

Hi Nabeelsahab, thanks for the note. There are a number of problems with your edit on Zad al-Ma'ad. Firstly, the content you added seems to have been copied and pasted from http://www.kalamullah.com/zaad-al-maad.html. The text is therefore copyrighted material and should be removed. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste.

Secondly, Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view based on reliable secondary sources. Websites such as kalamullah.com are not considered reliable due to there polemic and sectarian nature. Neutral sources include media agencies such as the BBC or academic sources. Please read WP:RS. There are a number of academic sources on Ibn Qayyim such as the works of Livnat Holtzman and Jon Hoover which you should consider looking into that might provide reliable and accurate information about Zad al-Ma'ad.

Thirdly, the language of the article needs to be Encyclopedic. Claims such as "This book is one of the important resources of knowledge for those who seek to know the Seerah.." seems to be an example of puffery. Please read WP:PUFF.

Fourthly, adding statements such as "Available from Australian Islamic Library website" seems to be a clear case of WP:PROMOTION. Zad al-Ma'ad is available in a whole series of websites such as http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Complete_Zaad_al_Maad.pdf, http://idci.co.uk/Provisions-For-The-Hereafter---Mukhtasar-Zad-Al-maad-699-d etc.... so there is no need to specify the Australian Islamic Library in particular. RookTaker (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nawawi. 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) 11:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RookTaker, I hope life is good. I've nominated the article on Umar Vadillo for deletion. It seems to be one of those poorly sourced pages created by a fan or by someone connected by Vadillo himself. I'd be grateful if you would take a look at the page and share your views at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GorgeCustersSabre:, I hope you are well. I'll hopefully do some research on Umar Vadillo in the near future and see if I can find some reliable secondary sources. From my recollection he belongs to a group named al-Murabitun, though I am unaware of his notability. RookTaker (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salam alaikum man, I wanted to as you and @GorgeCustersSabre: for some assistance. If you could, try taking a look at Special:Contributions/Islamic11111. I reverted some clearly jihadist stuff the guy was posting about two weeks ago without any sources or discussion; he has not yet responded to any attempts to contact him or edit summaries which requested a discussion be opened on talk. The Sunni Islam, Ihsan, Salafi movement, Athari, Shirk (Islam) and Kafir articles have been on the receiving end of some of this, though the user has already been reverted by multiple users across multiple articles so those might be safe since the changes are less substantial. The main problem area is Tawhid.
Take a look at the article's history page. For the past few days, the guy has basically been rewriting the article. I don't have time to check it out right now, but if what we have seen on other articles is any indication this is a cause for concern. Just let me know what you think if you have the time, I will take a look myself later. This is definitely something that needs attention. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and salams @MezzoMezzo:. I also reversed a change made by the editor on the Athari article as it did not seem constructive. It is a little difficult to keep pace of things however as he seems very active and has already made a few hundred edits. One thing you might want to look at is his suggestion to change the title of the Salafi Movement article to Salafism. I'm not strongly against this, though you might want to contribute to the discussion on the talk page. RookTaker (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	A keen and in-dept user Thefireball777 (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zakariyya al-Ansari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian. 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) 09:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ishaq al-Isfara'ini, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

FireflySixtySeven (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hamza Yusuf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. 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) 09:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:RookTaker, I hope you are well. I've been working hard on the Umar page to copy edit the clumsy and repetitive written expression and to add appropriate temples. Another editor has started reverting EVERYTHING. Can you please take a look. Thank and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GorgeCustersSabre:, I am well thanks and hope you are too. I'm a bit tied up today, but I will endeavour to look at the Umar article tomorrow. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usul. 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) 11:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibn Battah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibn al-Jawzi. 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) 09:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taj al-Din al-Subki, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

BenLinus1214^talk 22:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Izz al-Din ibn 'Abd al-Salam, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Primefac (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hamza Yusuf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Murabitun. 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) 09:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RookTaker, thank you for spotting the mistake about Ibn Rajab. After your edit, I reviewed the encyclopedia of Islam article again and found that his mention was in reference to him being inspired by Ibn Taymiyyah so I have corrected it.

Secondly I deleted the mention of Mohammad Yusuf because there are/were a lot of other Islamist leaders who have also been inspired by Ibn Taymiyyah and who are also more notable. These are as follows; Osama bin Laden, Sayid Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, Hassan Al Banna and Rashid Rida. I have reliable sources for all of these. Should we include these as well as they are much more widely known than Mohammad Yusuf?

The content regarding Sabuktigin, I took from Sabuktigin's page because it was referenced. However you have stated that the book, "The Ash'aris: in the Scales of Ahlus Sunnah", is a bigotted PoV source. Could you please explain why? Regards Mbcap (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mbcap:, thanks for the questions.

I get your point regarding Muhammad Yusuf - we could end up with a very long list in the infobox. Is this a good enough reason not to include him - I'm not sure. Perhaps we can get some guidance from more experienced editors. Assistance can be provided from WP:ASSIST so if you feel it is worthwhile we can raise a question there.

Regarding the book "The Ash'aris: in the Scales of Ahlus Sunnah" published by http://www.salafimanhaj.com/. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view based on reliable secondary sources. Websites such as salafimanhaj.com are not considered reliable due to there polemic and sectarian nature. Neutral sources include media agencies such as the BBC or publishing houses such as Oxford University Press and Brill Academic Publishers. Please read WP:RS and WP:SOURCE which states that:

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

university-level textbooks

books published by respected publishing houses

magazines

journals

mainstream newspapers.

SalafiManhaj.com doesn't seem to fit into any of the above and so should not be used.

Thanks, RookTaker (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy reply. I just thought Mohammed Yusuf was relatively insignificant as compared to Sayyid Qutb and OBL etc who are basically responsible for modern Islamism, in whatever shape one chooses to ascribe to the form of Islamism. It may be better for us to remove his name (my opinion). I understand if you would still like it left in, in which case I would have to add the above mentioned names to maintain proper weight in the influenced section.

As to the points regarding reliable sources, yes I was aware that Salafimanhaj is a partisan source. You could basically figure that out just by the name. However the book in question is written by a notable qualified scholar by the name of Uthman al- Jasim. In the Arab world the book is part of respected mainstream publications. The book has no assocation with Salafimanhaj. All Salafimanhaj did was to take that book and translate it in English, which they then published. The only alternative is to find the original Arabic book and find someone willing to translate but this would be a weighty effort if one can simply use a translation. As I mentioned previously, this bit of the article was not my work but an attempt to keep well sourced information in the article is preferable. Mbcap (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mbcap: - regarding Mohammed Yusuf, I am not sure about keeping his name in the infobox. Perhaps we should ask other editors so as to get a consensus. For now, I am happy for you to remove his name but I would like to revisit this in the future.

I really don't think that al-Jasim is a "notable qualified scholar". His works are typically sectarian in nature and are clearly used to put forward a particular point of view (in this case Salafist). In WP:SCHOLARSHIP we read that:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

If you are able to show that al-Jasim's work has been "vetted by the scholarly community" and that his book "has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" then I would be happy for his book to be cited. As a side point, I am sure there are many reliable works regarding Sabuktigin. For example, I have found an entry for him in the Encyclopaedia of Islam under Sebuktigin so it is not clear to me why we need to refer to polemic works such as al-Jasim's. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jasim has been vetted by the scholarly community but since you mentioned there being other reliable sources, on reflection, yes it would be best to use others. Regardless, I do not think the issue of Sabuktigin is as important as some of the other areas that need work on the article page.

Thank you for your point regarding Mohammed Yusuf. I will not remove it just yet though as I need to look through sources once more to see how much the link between him and Ibn Taymiyyah are afforded weight, and how many sources cover it. Please do continue to vet the work on the Ibn Taymiyyah page, as without your help, there would have been an incorrect reference to Ibn Rajab. Regards Signed at later date by Mbcap Mbcap (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I added is clear enough; i.e. Ash'ari creed is opposed by the Salafi/Wahhabi doctrine which is espoused by some armed groups in Syria who may have killed this man. The point of my edit is that an unassuming reader might question why a respected Sunni scholar would be killed in a mosque by a suicide bomber by—in all likelihood— fellow Sunnis. Since the lead chose to present al-Bouti as a follower of Sunni/Ash'ari school, the rift the latter has with Salafis is a notable fact which should be pointed out. --Tachfin (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay seems good to me. --Tachfin (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:RookTaker, I hope you are well. A new editor, User:Asadullahkhanghalib, is changing sourced information on the Zaytuna College page without adding new (and better) sources or discussing the changes on the talk page. He has now broken the three-revert rule. I've written on the College talk page and on the editor's talk page. Can you please take a look. Regards and thanks, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GorgeCustersSabre: - Nice to hear from you. I am well thanks and hope you are too. I've had a look at the edits made by @Asadullahkhanghalib: and whilst the editor is probably well-meaning, some of the changes don't appear to be backed up from reliable sources as per WP:RS. I will therefore revert changes that I feel are not sourced. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know you're open to discussion. Thanks.Sakimonk ^talk 06:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You say you want to talk yet you're reverting my changes and ignoring my request to discuss these edits. There are multiple and using the article talk page won't suffice. Sakimonk ^talk 06:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibn Qudamah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibn al-Jawzi. 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) 09:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you want to explain how exactly is your revert an agreed version?--Peaceworld 10:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please see my comments. Sakimonk ^talk 21:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

would you be able to provide some input on the Athari talk page. Jzk. Sakimonk ^talk 21:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re. your edits to Fethullah Gülen, per quoted sources the guy has been charged with terrorism-related crimes. IBTimes is a reliable source as are other news outlets listed, so it is unclear why you have removed the information. Sure, the charges are political in nature and should be viewed in the wider context of power struggle within Turkey, but the fact that he has been charged with terrorism is confirmed in multiple sources. Your attempt at relativising the issue right from the outset ("currently charged by the current government") read rather poorly in an encyclopaedia. — kashmiri ^TALK 10:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kashmiri:, please read the discussion about this on the talk page of the Gulen Movement article. The same content was discussed their. RookTaker (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RookTaker, I hope you are well. I know you are busy but I'll be very glad and grateful if you'll please look at the Yousuf Gabriel page and in particular at the deletion recommendation page. I believe the page clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and may have been created by a fan (the only editor aside from me) to promote the sale of a book. In any event, the article relies on unacceptable or weak sources and says almost nothing that can be considered encyclopedic. Thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RookTaker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am notifying interested projects and editors that I've listed Abu Eesa Niamatullah for discussion at AfD.

I invite you to contribute to the discussion. Mujaddouda (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]