Talk:Nuh Ha Mim Keller

message: Do the silly comments of personal experience and accusations fall within the guidelines? Should they be deleted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.132.1.23 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be removing all the BLP violations on this talk page per WP:BLPTALK. 81.159.252.167 (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page Guidelines 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151028002951/http://ebooks.i360.pk/2015/10/25/becoming-muslim-nuh-ha-mim-keller/ to http://ebooks.i360.pk/2015/10/25/becoming-muslim-nuh-ha-mim-keller/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: His work contains many deliberate mistranslations intended to fool the Western audience eg his translation of female genital mutilation - why is this not mentioned? 82.31.101.249 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberate mis translations 

message: Controversies
Keller has been accused of presiding over a system that enabled the abusive treatment and physical punishment of children [12] 
The section "Controversies" should be deleted. The claims mentioned in the poorly written article that is referred to are unproven. The newspaper it was published in is insignificant and surely can be called tabloid journalism. The section can at least be called "poorly sourced", it is libelous and not worthy of an encyclopedia. Therefore, it violates the standards set by Wikipedia. Quark1000 (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022 

message: The Middle East Eye material has now been restored under a neutral heading with proper context. The allegations are characterized as such and attributed to the news organization. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the material. Or, at least, I have not yet seen a valid objection to the material. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , instead of edit warring, can you please use this space to justify your edits? Talk page engagement during content disputes is the way to do things here. As it stands, there is consensus for including the material, and you'll need to explain why you removed it in order to change minds or persuade others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Abdunibnabd, any response to the above? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested Middle East Eye material