User talk:DianeJR

Flagrant misrepresentation of sources
I don't know what exactly your motivation is, but for whatever reason, you've gone on a mini-warpath against the Zahiri school of Sunni Islam. The problem is, you've clearly been editing pages where the reliable sources cited as well as the discussions involved have proven, without a doubt, that not only does Zahirism still exist, but it's also Sunni - in particular, you should have known better after seeing Zahiri#Modern_history and Template_talk:Sunni_Islam. There's really no doubt about either issue at all. Your constant mentioning of the school in the same sentence as Wahhabism is also a clear attempt to stigmatize the group, which is kind of odd considering how rare Zahirism appears to be anyway. Your reasoning is your own, but please understand that this is an encyclopedic site - not a forum for people to preach about what they think is right or wrong in the world. Specifically, it is imperative that you don't edit these articles further until after a thorough review of WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPOV. Otherwise, it appears that your rather disruptive edits (which don't take much time to fix, but still, they're disruptive) will only sully the project in the longrun; your efforts would much better be spent on reviewing all research and sources provided rather than pushing a specific point of view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain how this site works, as your account is new and you haven't been editing long. You're still new so some infractions are forgiveable, but please refrain from blatant personal attacks like this one you left on my talk page. In fact, it is imperative that you read No personal attacks to understand why your speculation and insults to me personally literally don't advance your argument at all.
 * In addition to responding to NONE of the policy based arguments, you've also continued reverting with minimal explanation in your edit summaries; that's a violation of Edit warring. I know all the policies can be daunting, but you're being especially bold by deleting both soures materials and sources themselves, adding material to the leads of articles which clearly clashes with cited material below and are literally manipulating a 14th century source to make bold claims about the present day. That isn't acceptable, and this will end much better for you if you brush up on site guidelines and correct yourself rather than having someone higher up than both of us correct you.
 * Please consider this a reminder from a more experienced editor and a warning; Wikipedia is not a place for you to push your own POV and pick and choose which sources you would like to appear on articles. I've seen people with starts almost as rocky as yours turn things around and improve their behavior, and I've seen people crash and burn by going this route as well. The ball is in your court. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)