Talk:Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a logo be included in this article to improve its quality.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Relationship to Muslim Brotherhood

The relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Saudi Arabia is clearly spelled out in the references provided. Sgmiller (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't seem to be reliable.Bless sins (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Is there any evidence of this organization's notability?Bless sins (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes 9 February 2016

@MartinMüller Klein: I've reverted this edit. I don't know what's true and what isn't, but Wikipedia is more concerned with what reliable sources say, so we can't replace content that cites sources with partially contradictory content that does not cite sources. One perspective should only be replaced with another if the former is not sourced to reliable sources, doesn't reflect what those sources say, or if it would be undue weight to include. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated deletions by single purpose account

Hi 220 of Borg checking the log Special:Contributions/Rizkybusiness shows that it is a WP:SPA (single purpose accuont). Therefore I propose a WP:Topic ban. An option is to make a topic ban time limited. What do you think? A Thousand Words (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm not out of my depth here, all I did was revert their edit! It looks like they are making the exact same deletion/s every time. (At least they're edit summary-ing!) "… young Europeans working hard for a more diverse, cohesive and vibrant Europe for all." I have a feeling that's directly from the FEMYSO website. It's certainly not very constructive.
• Is there any merit to their objections to the content they're deleting? Otherwise it's just vandalism, and I think blocking the account. 220 of ^ßorg 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 220, the information deleted is WP:V verified to WP:RS, namely established researchers in the field. One of those is Aje Carlbom. Therefore the information should be retained in the article per WP:PRESERVE. Rizkybusiness has presented zero sources to support his case, execpt the WP:PRIMARY source, but enWP prefers WP:SECONDARY sources. Therefore I agree the account should be deleted due to repeated vandalism of this article. A Thousand Words (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in that case, their last warning should probably have been an 'immediate' block warning for anymore deletions. I also see ownership and POV. If their edit record (7 mass deletions in ~7 weeks) is brought to the attention of an Admin, I think they could be banned. Regards,220 of ^ßorg 12:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 220, do you have a particular admin in mind? The user did another deletion on 1 July. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1Kwords - Thanks for the ping. I have given them another warning for deletion, 4im this time. That may bring it to an Admins attention, or WP:AIV could be notified. They've done this 8 times now., So overdue for a permanent block IMHO. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nb. You can ping with,
{{U|220 of Borg}} rather than [[user:220 of Borg|'''220''']].
A little simpler, shorter. Regards. 220 of ^ßorg 09:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 220 of Borg, I have added a report at WP:AIV. If there is anything you would like to add, feel free to do so. Regards, A Thousand Words (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]