User talk:TimSale123

October 2021
Hello, I'm Equine-man. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Islamic Society of Baltimore have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Equine-man (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Islamic Society of Baltimore. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Equine-man (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Come to my talk page lets discuss there. Click new section top left to begin conversation. I want to understand your rational behind deleting the sections--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I am "Acquitting" the suspect
I believe there are valid concerns as to why some of the sections were deleted. For example its mentioned a couple of times that Washington Times (in particular, oh i just realised its not Bezos' The Washington Post ) and Fox network accuses the Organisation of terror associations because the imam had supported the Muslim Brotherhood, but it mentions only once that the imam had "cut relations with the group in 1992." I find the section needing some thorough editing even though I reverted Tim's edit earlier. Let it be put on the record for future viewers that i am giving Tim a clean chit for the time being ie he has made reasonable deletion and that some edits needs to be re-edited. The "Controversies section" has been deeply cited by News articles by the way. Moreover there's a couple part left out


 * "But he told the Post in that same article they had cut ties to the Muslim Brotherhood abroad and “we don't receive an order from any organization abroad, and [they] have no authority to tell us what to do." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/baltimore-mosque-set-for-obama-visit-has-controversial-ties

My overall verdict is there needs to be thorough editing --LostCitrationHunter (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)