User talk:MezzoMezzo/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MezzoMezzo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The section on Love of the Prophet was unencylopedic and poorly referenced, you are correct, but the one important and famous thing Nabhani is known for is his love of the Prophet. Nothing else about the man really is well known. So we should try to get it into the entry in some sort of way.

Thanks,

If you can understand and read Arabic you will know that he was specifically well known for this - it is written in many many books. If you ask who "Nabahani" was in his home of Lebanon - the first thing that pops up is that he was the writer who wrote dozens and dozens of books only on the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and was called a lover of the Prophet. His basic specialty as a scholar was love of the Prophet. Nobody really even knows about him as a jurist or anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohossino (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, while I don't need such nice words they certainly never hurt. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although, I only did a little bit of formatting :) --gren グレン 15:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up! --Enzuru 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not abuse your knowledge of Wikipedia to maintain a one-sided representation of Al-Albani. Like it or not, Al-Albani was and remains controversial. It is neither neutral nor honest to censor all criticism of the Shaykh via protracted edit wars. 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.163.18 (talk)

I added a note to the Albani talk page, please have a look. From you Muslim friend (who happens to be a Maliki) but we're all friends under the umbrella of Allah and following the Messenger ; )

Jaw101ie (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mezzo Mezzo, I'm scared, I don't want to edit any articles on Islam. I don't want to be judged for writing the wrong thing.

In fact what do you personally think about religion and the internet, I get the impression that it's the source of more bad than good. Anything you search on Google just leads to thread after thread (I call it PamphletIslam) of one group crunching into the other; why can't we all just unite! We're all Muslim, we all said La Illaha Illa Allah Muhammad(PBUH) rasullu Allah.

Is it really the end of the world, if I pray with my hands by my side (following a 'weaker' sunna) or my friend doesn't eat seaood because he's a Muslim who follows the hanafi school, or that you'd prefer I make my own ijtihads? I think that I'm going to avoid Islam and the internet for a while inshallah and move on to just respecting everyone in my prayer room and they respecting me. Rather than fighting about the minute, or shouting bid'ah at the elderly, I just want to escape into a forest and read Quran and be rid of all this waswasa and fighting. Good Luck Bruv, you can do what you like with the Albani article, I'm off it, and I've left my message of unity, SalaamuAlaykum and best of luck with life! Jaw101ie (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Salamu Alaykum, thank you very much for the post. You're right, I know what it was; it's not that I had a bad experience discussing the deen, just bad experiences reading the bad discussions. I've been trapped in a strange internal satanic madhhab/salafist fight for the last few days, and I've decided to stick with my madhhab.

But, having made that decision, and reading the 'bad discussions', I got the silly impression that I was haram, then the salafists haram, then i was haram, then the salafists haram.... hehe.. It doesn't stop. Then I thought the salafists hate me, and that I should hate the salafists, then they should hate me, then I should hate them, again it goes on... In fact it won't stop until we all stopping making takfeer of each other and stop using these words to label ourselves, respect each other as Muslims!

and acknowledge that we all want to follow the Quran and sunna (we just read them through different paths). It's also important that we don't generalise, because I think that's what the internet discussions do sometimes; they give you a bad impression of a 'type' of Muslim, because we only have an i.d. to hide behind.

Our imam is a Muslim salafi, I'm sure, but I love him and he loves me too, and knows that I follow the Maliki madhhab. Again it's just the shaytan that puts those words in our brain, and wants us to forget we're muslims. If we adopted the same attitude on Wikipedia, we could get lots of Christians and Jews to convert for sure. They'd say 'look how well all these Muslim 'groups' edit together'.

Instead, like you said, we chop each other up and the shaytan rules victorious yet again over us. My father used to tell me as a child when I lived in Ireland, that if all the Muslim doctors in the hospital acted as real muslims, then not a Christian patient would leave their care than submit to our one true Allah and the wisdom and warmth of his messenger. It's true!

It's just sad actually, the kind of discussions that reign on the internet. I hope we can all love and respect each other, if only for the sake of brotherhood. Forgive my rant; I'm opening up to someone I don't even know but I just want to vent some of my anger at all the takfeer and hatrid I've seen in the last few weeks. Salafist, shmalafist, whatever you follow brother, you're a Muslim in my eyes so best of luck with everything, and I'll be back soon for edits or just to say hello, SalaamuAlaykum ; ) Jaw101ie (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you made a very sensible edit on the Al-Azhar University page a couple of days ago. Some anonymous Wiki user tried to sneak in the untrue and unsourced phrase "it became a Sunni school when Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam", and you promptly reverted this change back to its original "it became a Sunni school towards the end of the Middle Ages, an orientation it retains to this day". I thought you'd like to know that that same anonymous user has been trying since to insert that same bogus phrase into the article. He has even included some fake references that do not state anywhere that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" to create the illusion that what he is saying is fact. I've exposed his lies in some detail on the talk page, but the guy just doesn't get it and keeps re-inserting the phrase. He has now gotten belligerent and no longer even bothers trying to justify his edits; he just reverts. I would appreciate some back up on this one. Causteau (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I just checked the page, and would you believe it, the vandal is back with his bogus sources in tow. He already reverted the page! Causteau (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished posting a message on the Administrators' noticeboard. It's the second one I'm posting there, but something tells me this one will be taken more seriously since it's now two separate editors versus this one lone vandal. Thanks again for the help, BTW. I'll also be keeping an eye on the page. If ever you need any assistance yourself on any matter, let me know and I've got your back. Causteau (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into some of the edits by the anon, some of them look okay, and others were disruptive. Some were definitely grey-area though. For example, I'm not sure it was wise to revert him here.[1] Per WP:BLP, we shouldn't be calling someone a terrorist, unless we have a clear sourced statement right in the article, that proves that the individual has been called a terrorist in reliable sources. --Elonka 05:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, could you please tone things down a bit in your edit summaries? Don't use the words "you" or "your". Please try to keep things very calm, very civil, and in the third person. Thanks, Elonka 04:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, why would you want to start a new ANI thread? The purpose of posting at ANI, is to get an admin's attention. Well, you have my attention. Your best bet is to work with me for a bit, rather than trying to further escalate things. --Elonka 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, please stop re-adding "Terrorist" categories to articles,[2] unless the word "terrorist" is already in the article, and it is linked to reliable sources. --Elonka 04:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are engaging in an edit war at this article, but not participating at talk. Please stop reverting, unless you can also explain your edits at the discussion page. Thanks, Elonka 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your report. You may ask an administrator to block NAccount and semi-protect his favorite articles at WP:ANI. If you can list articles on his "hit list" other than Al-Azhar University, that will help the administrator who answers your request. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted some comments on your report and included some difs for support. Reading some of the other posts on this user, the evidence against him is so overwhelming, I find it difficult to believe any administrators would look the other way. I've also included links to the FBI website, which conclusively show that a couple of the men whose pages he removed links from are indeed internationally wanted terror suspects. Causteau (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your comment. → AA ^(talk) — 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that whole issue, should I go forward and formally request a checkuser now? And are we running this specifically on Klaksonn's old contribs? I've never done this before so I have no idea how it works. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything is explained at WP:RFCU. There's a template there that you have to fill in. By the way, MezzoMezzo, your name has been brought up and involved in a few disputes and that is really not a good thing. You may be wrong, you may be right but it is important to remain calm and to make sure you abide by NPOV policy. We have already talked about this a few weeks ago. Please, edit carefully and discuss your edits in a calm way. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this. I'll try to cool off and give some thought to how i've dealt with disputes in the past. So far what i've been doing hasn't worked very well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take this as a promise from your part. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attitude about the muslim brotherhood article,and yes indeed they do have a long history of violence in egypt and around the world.Elmondo21st (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me where in the article the muslim brotherhood is described as radical. It very clearly says some american commentators condemn them as radical but never in their own opinion do they call them radical. Secondsly the articles name is called the Moderate muslim rotherhood, i think it would be very odd if the authors were condeming them as radical as well. Please elaborate if you have any objection to me removing the radical label since it is such a loaded word. An encyclopedia artcilre shouldnt pass judgments on groups.Kash545 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But now you are clearly inserting your own opinion into the article. The point of an encyclopedia article is to present the facts to the reader, so he can figure form his own opinion. The introduction of the article is no place for personal unreferenced opinion. Indeed if you have a criticism of them, then inculde it in the criticism section. the article is set up to provide criticisms and responses to criticisms in the following sections so why dont you make your case there. Just another note if you are going to add anything please quote scholarly sourcs and dont make sweeping claims based on your POV. I am reverting your edit to preserve the neutrality of the article if you have any problem with this post on my talk page. Kash545 (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And secondly regarding you reference it clearly states that some American commentators describe them as radical. But the author of the article doesnt condemn them as radical he is trying to make the opposite case, secondly there are many scholars that speak positively of the Muslim brotherhood and its brand of political islam such as John esposito, john voll, mark leVine and lisa anderson. This is the main reason many conservative commentators such as daniel pipes criticize American academia. Because in his view they are too pro islamist and to anti american. Read espositos islam and democracy, indeed many in the academic community see the brotherhood as the dominant moderating force in the region. IN light of a difference of opinion I think we better keep loaded words such as radical out of the introductory section Kash545 (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont know why you thought i was making personal attacks that was not my intenton at all im sorry of you tok it that way. I dont see the need to be so offended by what i said, in light of that could you please present your case as to why your edit is right over mine. Kash545 (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok sorry about that i didnt know that accusing people of POV was a personal attack. Anyway i think we both misunderstood each other. Lets start over, i dont want to quarrel with a fellow muslim brother, so i am proposing a compromise i am not going to edit until you tell me what you think about it. How about we put that exact quote as it appears in that reference into the article. What i mean is instead of radical we insert in quotes "American commentators have long desribed them as radical... hostile to american interest.." or whatever the quote was. I think this is a fair compromoise, tell me what you think. Wasalam Kash545 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Assalamualiekum brother, i have a comment about the hizb ut tahrir article. I wanted to comment on your latest edit on whether hizb ut tahrir was a terrorist organization or not. I just wanted to say that dispute was resolved on the talk page after a lengthy dispute a couple of months ago. It has only recently been changed without consulting the talk page, i am not going to revert the edit yet, i just wanted to know your thoughts on it. From my viewpoint the user who a couple of weeks ago changed it to a terrorist organization did so without consultation, and revived a already settled issue. Anyway just tell me your thoughts about this. Wasalam Kash545 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Salaam if you look at the talk page you will see the debate lingering over a couple of pages, with the opposition unable to produce credible links to terrorism, The editor Itaqallah asked for links that specifically said whether hizb was banned due to terrorism and it wasnt found. Secondly it was never listed as a terrorist organization by the US, UK, EU and that has to count for something, and all of that was listed on hte talk page. My other contention was that if you look at the history the events in the talk page took place about a year ago, and they settled the article without stating that Hizb was a terrorist group, it was only recently that a user changed it without consulting the talk page. So dont you think we should revert it to the way it was after the lengthy discussion they had on the talk page after they negotiated the details of the article, rather than accepting a random users edit which took place only a few weeks ago without consulting the talk page. Tell me your opinion. wasalam Kash545 (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Join us here: User talk:Enzuru/ConstitutionIslam --Enzuru 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is going to be your certainly deep insight in general. Working on controversial articles such as Salafism and the like will give you an important view into differing movements and branches of Islam and how to correctly approach these issues while staying neutral and not stepping on anyone's toes. --Enzuru 08:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's been done. Click the above link I gave you before and that's where it goes. --Enzuru 05:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation ,infact most of my contributions is in arabic wikipedia but sometimes i do look in the english wikipedia and i am trying to contribute from time to time,and ofcourse if u feel like you need any help in the arabic wikipedia please dont hesitate.Elmondo21st (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

dear brother how are you?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 

Salam, Dear Brother,

Please do not simply rejecting everybody views that contarary to yours, we have our reliable sources, do not just rm POV'ed them, read them first, and let all the readers know that there are other view on the matters.

JazakAllahu khair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adyabd (talk • contribs) 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Assalamu Alaikum. I replied on the talkpage. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point that blogs are not a valid source - however, the blogs cited provide references back to peer reviewed academic sources. Referencing should surely acknowledge the actual source (rather than the academic sources they in turn use) otherwise by going directly to the academic source and skipping the source used would have copyright implications - yes? Maybe both sources need to be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing academic sources is not a problem nor does it cause copyright issues - what is problematic is if the academic source is lifted from a blogsite, then the blogsite (or website) should be referenced otherwise there are copyright/plagiarism issues... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this [3] how can you say they are known fabrications. Even if you think they are, you will have to add that information too, who is challenging it & why. You cant just remove a whole paragraph claiming its a fabrication. Salam. Farhansher (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem :).

There seems to be a lot of editors out there who believe that inserting their own POV is a valid counterargument to what they believe is a biased article.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? ;)

Keep up the good work :). I'll definitely let you know if I need any help with vandalism in the future.

Thanks, TheSuave (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, could you help me work on these please

• Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan
• Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan
• Sheikh Jamaal al-Din M. Zarabozo
• Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali
• Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan
• Sheikh Muhammad bin Jamil Zeno

Thanks, AWT (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC) .

Hello, which of the Fawzan's websites is this: http://www.alfawzan.ws as detailed here and which is the Dr. Muhammad b. Salih al-Fawzan (Member of the Teachers Board, al-Imâm University) as mentioned here and who is the Dr. Muhammad b. Salih al-Fawzan (Professor of Qur'anic Studies, Teachers College) as mentioned here. AWT (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, i'm always glad to help. Let's see what we can do to get references for notability all around, I think it's a good project in the making. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The Saalih ibn Fawzaan ibn 'Abdullaah al-Fawzaan mentioned in the Memri article appears to be the one we have the article about, and I also found a somewhat official looking site for him here. The Muhammad al-Fawzaans in the other links, I don't know who they are, but they aren't the guy we have a wiki article about as the famous member of the Lajnah doesn't have "Muhammad" in his name. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful. Also though, we have aswell as Saleh Al-Fawzan, we have Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan which needs even more work on as I cannot find anything on him. AWT (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad you are back, where did you go for vacation? Good time I hope. Their has been a little progress but with threats of deletion I have had to add things in that I would not usually have had to add, so apologies fo rthis. Hopefully, if these things have to be kept then maybe they can be countered with rationality. I sincerely hope you can help. AWT (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See what you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salafi#Mentioning_Wahhabism --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You tagged the article istighfar for deletion and said in the rationale that "The notability for this subject is not supported in any manner." It is clear that you made this decision without any basis in knowledge, as any Muslim would be able to tell you that it is a key concept of the religion. Did you even bother looking for it on the web? Google has 243,000 hits for "istighfar", 490,000 for "istigfar", and 352,000 for إستغفار.

Please act more carefully before tagging an article for deletion in future. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In your last edit , you based your deletion of some contents because they rely on Hadith which you considered in your understanding of wikipolicy as primary. I do not know why you deleted this content knowing that I cited primary sourse as back up. In fact I was based on two contemporary scholars, The known Albani and Rifa3i. So I suggest that you become more academic and neutral as edits like this may harm your reputation brother. With all respect Yusayr (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I do appreciate you saying it. We still have a long way to go on many articles, though! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help me here, your knowledge is needed! And before you click, I'm sorry for abusing the term boogeyman. =( --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the following on the talk page of this article:

Source of this Biography? This bio more or less follows the bio written,in Arabic of course, by Mu'allimee's son included in his book al-Tankeel. As I don't have the book in front of me now I say this based upon my recollection. I am guessing that the actual source of this article is the bio used in the introduction to book, 'Essential Contemplations', summarized from al-Tankeel and translated into English several years ago. In any case, the source of this article should mentioned.

Although, the revision history does not show that you participated in the writing or editing of this article, the note you wrote on the talk gave me the immpression that you did in fact play a role in writing the article. In any event, perhaps if you have al-Tankeel or Essential Contemplations, you could properly reference this article. As Mu'allimee was decribed as the Thahabee of our time, this seems a worthy article to be improved upon. Supertouch (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think I wrote this while under the impression that you began the Mu'allimi page so I hope I didn't offend. I found the source - Salafi Publications - and the copyright violation was deleted and all that remains is a stub. As I have the bio of him that his son wrote and two other source book on the Shaikh I plan to redo the page in a manner befitting the Dhahabi of our time as Bakr Abu Zaid referred to him. Supertouch (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm bogged down in Iranian stuff these days but will attempt to ehlp out --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As-Salaamu 'Alaikum, I would appreciate your assistance in resolving a dispute on the Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari page. Check out the recent edit battle between me and Rob lockett. I simply would like to see my referenced edits quoting from a prominent religious text remain in spite of the vandalism, in my opinion anyway, of the other user. Thanks in advance.Supertouch (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Please look into this article, you might help in resolving the issue between 2 editors. Oniongas (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue was resolved, I discovered that a clearly agenda driven user who was possibly engaging in vandalism was copying material and adding it to pages such as Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani and other controversy ridden pages.Check the resolution if you want... Supertouch (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the fatwa against Barelvis is a valid criticism to include in the article. The trick is that the Barelvi supporters are getting very, very, picky about WP procedure for including links. Plus really blurring the line between "saying the Barelvis are kufr is POV" and "noting that Salafis call Barelvis kufr is POV". Tell you what, how about you make the specific case about citing that fatwa over on the Barelvi talk page, and I'll back you on the fact that, unless somehow the citation on the website is itself wrong, that the accurate English translation thereof on the site is a valid criticism to include. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I compiled the pages that User:Rob lockett copied material onto - I listed the affected pages on the Talk page for Shaikh Ibn Baz. I think we both worked on some of those pages. Although all five of the affected pages have been fixed I thought it good idea to spread the word. Supertouch (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

assalamu alaykum brother

alhamdulillah i see you are upon the manhaj of the salaf us salih insha'allah and i wondered if there is any way for all the salafi brothers to some how network on here inshallah so we are able to work together to ensure all of the information on wikipedia is correct.

if you are interested please get in touch with me

jazak allaju khayran

assalamuy alaykum wa rahmah tullahi wa barakatuhu

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your note. what makes it especially poignant for me is that it was those sort of changes that were the subject of this.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, this revision, which was a flat misstatement -- the source certainly did support the related text.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

fyi -- I've sought page protection from the IPs here, without success.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see history on wiki entry on Yasir Qadhi, who has requested help in stopping vandalism on his entry by one "Lazy polar bear". This writer insists on adding unreliable sources and refuted material onto his page. Reverted few times but he has easily broken the 3R rule... I am not very familiar with wiki yet, so your help would be appreciated Abureem (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nuh Ha Mim Keller. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuh Ha Mim Keller (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

DEAR FRIEND . I want your opinions and help to iumprove this artcle. I hope that you would give your kind attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_in_Islamic_philosophy Zikrullah (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Assalam alaikum .Dear friend please help to know how can I delete my edit history or contributions.. if I want. Zikrullah (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)