Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:52, 17 September 2006

Bold textItalic text* NAL

• 2004 1
• 2005 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• 2006 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Re: Laundry Article

Dear Zora,

I am writing you with regards to the message you sent to me. I was doing research and found the Misplaced Pages listing on laundry. I have been aware of this new type of process for a few years now, and that was the impetus for including the listing. There was no mention about it in the article, only some strange process for washing clothes in the back trunk of your car (which was apparently acceptable). I added the Magnetic Laundry System link ONLY as a way to give visitors another place to find information about the new(er) process, since the encyclopedia doesn't cover it. It has nothing to do with commercial purposes (on my part) and if I broke the rules regarding Misplaced Pages policy, I apologize. But you still shouldn't jump to conclusions like that. I think the content itself was valid (without the link), and I am only trying to contribute. This is the first time I have tried to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I can't know everything right off the bat. I thought my contribution was valid. Please give me your feedback. Thank you very much. (I hope this is the right place to respond to you).

Re: Rang De Basanti

Hi Zora,

I don't agree with the revert to the Rang De Basanti page as when someone reads a plot synopsis, they expect a summary of the whole story. I also dont think its fair to say that readers dont read long synopses since that is a generalization and not a fact. Not to mention, the synopsis I wrote was not as long as other plot summaries I have read on Misplaced Pages. Addressing the issue of giving away the ending, that is what a plot summary is supposed to do. While the plot synopsis may be boring, it is the reader's choice to read the article and if he chooses to disregard the warning : Plot and/or ending details follow (written in Bold) then, that is the reader's conscious decision. However, in the interest of not starting a revert war, I will not revert the article back but I would appreciate a response.

Thanks

Thanks for telling me about King Kamehameha IV

Hi Zora,

Wow, you scared the life out of me when you told me that a section about the history of King Kamehameha IV was deleted from wikipedia. I think my 12 year old daughter may have accidentally deleted that while I was still logged on to my computer. I am a Hawaii history nut myself so, my heartfelt thanks goes out to you for restoring that section.

My daughter just completed a research project about Jonathan Napela, the resident superindent of the Kalaupapa leper colony on Molokai for Hawaii History Day. It was a media project. I am thing about posting the documentary on wikipedia.

I noticed that you speak Tongan and French. I speak Tahitian and French since I lived in Tahiti a ways back.

I top acting cranky! == Don't be childish! The other editors like the page. And if you think it's bad english then correct it rather than reverting the page. stop creating conflicts. why don't you find a new other hobby~ you're acting childish and i think it's because you're having heavy periods. just stop annoying me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Thanks Zora for the blog. It was interesting. I read the first article "Jews During Holocaust Reviled For Being “Muslim”". I felt I can not agree with editor on all points there. Of course I am neither knowledgeable enough nor am a good example of a typical Muslim. I agree with the conclusion that:"They (the Muselmanns) became indifferent to everything happening around them. They excluded themselves from all relations to their environment." but based on other reasons rather than submission to God's will.

My POV is that Islam encourages people to pay much more attention to hereafter rather than their worldly life. So, I believe this made many people lose their motivation to work hard, be productive and active. I don't say that there are not arguments against this interpretation but I definitely believe that the Qur'an and Hadiths encourage people to take their worldly life much easy. This is why I believe the following statement was/(is?) a good description of many Muslims. "They (the Muselmanns) became indifferent to everything happening around them. They excluded themselves from all relations to their environment."

Some Qur'anic and Hadith evidences:

“Set forth to them the similitude of the life of this world: It is like the rain which we send down from the skies: the earth's vegetation absorbs it, but soon it becomes dry stubble, which the winds do scatter: it is (only) God who prevails over all things. “ (18:45)

Ali said in his last will: "My advice to you is to be conscious of Allah and steadfast in your religion. Do not yearn for the world, and do not be seduced by it. Do not resent anything you have missed in it. Proclaim the truth; work for the next world."

" Imam Ali (as) wrote to Salman al Farsi (ra) : To continue, surely, the likeness of this world is that of a snake: it is soft to touch, and deadly poisonous. The ignorant child is distracted by it, and the one with understanding and intellect is cautious of it. So turn away from what fascinates you in it, for how little of it stays with you."

Maybe as the editor said "Very few understood what I had done", I am not understanding his point.

Anyways, thank you very much for the blog again. --Aminz 04:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh Zora, I can now understand that I didn't understand anything of that article. I can now see in what sense the word "submission" is used there. I think "submission to God" in the Islamic sense is supposed to mean "submission to God's commandments" and not "submission to fate". The example usually made is Abraham's obedience of God's commandment in sacrificing his son.

Unfortunately this is misused by some Muslims who believe Muslims should blindly follow the clerics.

But letting this aside, thanks for the beautiful prayer.

I usually start very energetic and impulsive but give up soon I think. Thank you very much again for both the blog and the prayer. --Aminz 07:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna

Made it 4 movies, will work on the awards. Also will first get sources and add a bit about the hysteria he used to generate ( god knows why) which was quite remarkable for India at that stage.Haphar 10:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

- Aksi_great (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Done. Zora 13:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That was quick. It looks great now. Are you an admin? I notice that you have 12000 edits and way too many barnstars :) - Aksi_great (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Having four different editors mad at you is an achievement in itself. You have only been blocked once (for 3RR) and you were not afraid to admit it yourself. That just shows your level headedness. Even though you never become an admin, please don't stop editing controversial articles as long as you don't violate policies. There is always someone who must do the dirty job. Maybe someday some great editor like Nichalp or Durin would notice you and nominate you for adminship. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Akash. Most of us are not bold enough to pick up tiffs with controversial editors. Someone is always required to make that bold revert & put their foot down. I feel you are a tremendous asset to Misplaced Pages. Keep it up! Cheers. --Srikeit 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Shez

I've blocked Shez for 24hrs for being uncivil. 4 editors at once?! But I'm sure you'd agree with me that none of these 4 can match up to LordSuryaofShropshire posts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Anwar too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Browncoat?

What's a browncoat? - Reaverdrop 17:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. I have heard Serenity is the greatest sci-fi movie ever, but also to watch the TV series first... the whole TV series was on my pay-per-view menu, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Sounds more delightful than ever though. There is also a "reaver" in Pushing Ice, which is absolutely worth getting hold of; the reaver there is a nearly invincible "femtotech" robot. But Protoss Reavers predate both the others by over five years. - Reaverdrop 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hi Zora, have you any interest in Category:Persian deities, which has recently been emptied out and may possibly be deleted soon?? Could you salvage it, have you any knowledge of the topic? ImpuMozhi 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Menehune

User:Emperor has added a WikiProject Paranormal tag to Talk:Menehune. I don't think this is appropriate given the users comments about "bigfoot" and "flying saucers" on my talk page. I feel that these paranormal enthusiasts are taking advantage of Hawaiian folklore, mythology, legend, and history, by trying to label menehune as "paranormal phenomena" (they're not doing this on the Leprechaun page). I don't think the "paranormal" has any place in this article. The user has also added a paranormal external links section which should be removed. —Viriditas | Talk 23:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Film category

I have removed the category on the Indian films with Muslim background .I will discuss it first .Shyamsunder 23:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey Zora –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 14:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Hi , I have included a new image in the talk page of the Islam template, please make your comments about it to be included in the template, thanks  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  18:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

70.134.82.18

this is my ip..I guess. I got the message that it did vandilism but I didnt. The article was bollywood, but I never been on that aritcle or vanilised it. I dont get it,how did my ip get into this..Coasttocoast 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

re the Salafi article

Zora:

You are right when you say that some of those who walk under the banner of "Salafi" advocate the killing of the Shia. With regards to violent attacks on Sufis, I am not familiar with any or have heard of these groups attacking them so I don't think I should comment in that regard.

Maybe the biggest issue in that sentence is the use of a generality. I consider myself to try to follow the Salafi ideology. I am not the type who supports Usama ibn Laden, but instead in the vein of Shaykh Abd al-Azeez ibn Baaz and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Uthaymeen. Along with Shaykh al-Albani, these are probably the biggest three scholars of Salafism in most peoples estimation in the past 25 years or so. To my knowledge, none of them have declared sufis and shias as a whole and specifically the individual followers of that methodology heretics. Maybe the article would be better suited with instead of explaining this issue in a general sentence, explain that those who say they adhere to the Salafi ideology have different views on the Sufis and the Shias. Some consider these groups heretics while other say the common shia or sufi is astray.

The reason I selected astray for this was because it was more encompassing of all the views of Salafis in this regard. Clearly, for those who consider them to be heretics, then they would necessarily consider them astray. I wanted to only make a small edit without changing the whole article.

Sorry if the way I sent this message is not inline with the protocol of how responses to wikipedia messages are sent. I usually when it comes to the articles only try to make a contribution without causing an argument or getting involved in those that already exist. Hopefully, my edit wasn't too bold for that article. ZaydHammoudeh 22:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Split of Academy of Gundishapur

Hello, as per one of your suggestions, Academy of Gundishapur was split into an article about the academy and one about the city (Gundeshapur). Comments welcome. Flammifer 07:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fashion Freedom

I consolidated my responses at the Fashion Freedom article. I've been involved with this movement for just over ten years. You may well be a wikipedian extraordinairre, but when it comes to this particular topic, it's clear from your off-target comments (see link) that you simply have no knowlege of this rather extensive movement. Nothing personl, but I and many othes would appreciate it if you would refrain from hacking something simply because you've never heard of it before. Lack of knowledge about something doesn't mean it's a target for deletion. It means that you need to take the time to research the topic more thoroughly. I've added some additional links to the article which may help bring you up to speed on this movement.

Removals of Commercial Link

Nevermind. I sent you answer to your answer already. Take care/

Sari links

I just added that html comment tags because an anon editor was adding a real commercial link (one with lots of ads) to the page. And yes, the sari page is in dire need of some good photos. Let me see if I can get any. Regards -- thunderboltz 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

First time here

Zora,

Let me apologize if this is the wrong way to reply to the message you left me. I'm new here, so I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to reply on your page or my own page.

Anyways, let me thank you for the points you brought up first of all. Then I'd like to point out that text can always be misinterpreted and seem to give a different meaning than that intended by the author, as in my case. What I wrote is not propaganda (and I actually do not appreciate the accusation) rather it is my complete honesty. I'm trying to explain to people simply, there are NO groups in Islam and there is one correct path as clear in the Qur'aan and Sunnah. This path does not belong to anyone, and no one has the right to block anyone from following it (as many students of knowledge do these days). Also, no matter what you call it, it is the same manhaaj (curriculum), whether it is called Salafi or XYZ or whatever. The point of using the word Salafi is to simplify the saying "We follow the Qur'aan and Sunnah, with the understanding of the Companions." As an Information Science graduate (both at the UG and Master's level) I feel that I can add value to this statement by saying that Humans by nature like to simplify and classify everything. It allows for them to feel that they have everything simple and organized in their heads. This is also one of many neuro-cognitive psychological theories (schemas in the brain). I'll spare you the mombo jumbo of all the science stuff, I'm sure you understand my point.

Also, I will take your consideration to heart and try to clarify some points that may have been misunderstood and simply not correct. You mentioned that my words seemed to simplify that any layman can look into the qur'aan and sunnah and get understanding - which is not 100% accurate, rather scholars help interprete the meaniend with their vast knowledge (as any scholar in any other field would). Also, you mentioned about following the "right" scholars - the right scholars are known by the truth like the saying goes "Men are known by the truth, truth is not known by men" or maybe I reversed it. Anyways... I appreciate you taking the time to read my lengthy article and critique it. I hope that there will be more dialouge between us in the future. However, I would appreciate it if it is within the bounds of friendly manners. I'm not writing any of this stuff for my own sake, or my own fame and glory. I do it for Allah's sake sincerely and I try to display the truth as best as I can, considering that I am not very knowledgable at all. With that said, I hope that we can have constructive discussions in the future. Then I'll have something to do at 9am when I get to work : )

--Abu Mahdhoorah 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Box office

Hello, Zora, I know that we don't have screen and box office information on any of our articles and I do intend to keep it that way, but the Ajith article always seems to be a battle ground, so I thought (not sure if it was such a good idea, though - maybe it's just useless) to first talk about *why* we remove certain parts of the current article, so people understand and we don't get another revert war and no one gets banned like User:Shez:15 did. I thought it might be helpful, also for the anon user who was reverting stuff -- maybe to get him/her understand and adopt a user name. What do you think? Is it just useless? You have more experience than I have when it comes to stuff like that. Best regards, --Plumcouch 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If I had to put up a list which editor on WP I seek to emulate, you would be number one, since you were the first person on WP to talk to me and I think you set things right in the best way possible. Sometimes, I don't know what to say if someone comes up with something really weird on a page. I'm just baffled. You always seem to know what to say - that's quite frustrating for someone who's still trying really hard. Anyway, as for the Ajith article: when everyone has had his/her say during the next 24 hours and everything will be fine, we revert it back, if not, we make an support/against/neutral election and see what comes out of it. If that anon continues the way s/he does, I'll have to find a nice admin to help me. Do you think that's okay? It's the only thing I can think of to solve the situation. --Plumcouch 21:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC) PS. And I don't think you're *hated* - maybe people are a tiny bit irritated, that's all.

Sorry!

Hey! sorry Zora if i really offended you. it's just that i was really frustrated because you would constantly revert my edits without giving them thought like others did. we were all fine with what was put on the page until you came again and reverted it all. if you want anything to change. just reason with me before. i know our opinions may not be the same but we can compromise at times. You cut all references. that wasn't clever. u think the page is going to stay like it was a year ago but things change and new sections are added to pages. Anyway, I learnt my lesson from getting blocked. I would like it if you and plumcouch could tone the article down keeping all the sections intact like they are maybe improvise on wordings. By the way, I'm letting you keep the Veer-Zaara page as it is. Although, I totally disagree because Rani was named before Preity in the movie as well as on the official website due to many factors which are more known to the producer himself. The best example would be Devdas and there are many others. It's like Aishwarya Rai had the lead role in Devdas, Madhuri Dixit had the supporting role. Still, Madhuri was credited before her due to seniority, name, and many other factors. Here, Madhuri even had a shorted role. Despite, it's credited like that. But no points in arguing, it's going to be a messy fight if we keep going on in the case of Veer-Zaara. I need to compromise here. It doesn't really matter who is listed before. It's a minor thing. Yet, it would have done justice to the movie and the official website if it was otherwise. Leaving this behind, I am going to work on our working relationship. And I apologize truly for my bad behaviour. I really mean this although i can't expect you to forgive me. Thank you for your time! shez_15 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops!

I didn't know about the revert rule! Secondly, I didn't revert anything, simply added things on a few pages. Or are you talking about Rani's page. I didn't get what you were trying to say. Please keep that format, just ask someone to help you tone it down. I promise I won't add more things for a long time if you tone it down on that format. Thanks! shez_15 01:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

Hey Zora. I have seen you editing around, esp. on the Rani Mukerji article. I have always noticed that you assume good faith and are working for the good of the encyclopedia. Always keep a cool head, and it is always good to ask other editors to come in and resolve disputes. Atleast, that is something which I do. Thank you for your cool contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regards, --Andy123 talk 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Vendettas

Zora, it's clear from your credentials that you're a crusader of sorts. Provided you crusade within your area of expertise, I'm all for that. But when you and others come into my area of expertise, claiming irrelevancy, neologism (impossible for acronyms in existence for more than a decade) and other irrelevant comments, it's disrespectful, at best. I liken it to an artist who attempts to correct a physicist that colors aren't additive. If the last didn't make sense to you, you're probably not a physicist. My point is that I've travelled the globe, lived in several countries, visited more than 30, have seen quite a few things in my 40+ years, and am merely attempting to document several rather sizeable phenomenon with respect to the numbers of individuals involved. It's not neologism (as discussed above). As I'm but one of 1.4 Billion men who wear MUGs, and am but one of at the very least several million men around the world who're familiar with this term, it's not "original thinking/authorship" etc., either.

Please take a step back, realize the world is a much larger place than any single person's limited sphere of understanding, and that Wiki caters to hundreds of nations, not just the Western few who wrongly believe men wearing anything but pants is somehow Biblically, and therefore wrong. Take a look at the plates in the back/front of any Bible. They depict Noah, Jesus, Moses, etc. - all wearing a MUG (male unbifurcated garment). The words aren't a new term. They're simply a collection of three words used to accurately describe, and encompass, this particularly form of fashion. Wiki even has a long-standing entry for "unbifurcated" which references clothing. These terms, in the English language for hundreds of years, were collected into the acronym MUG more than a decade ago as an alternative to saying "skirt-like garments" and "robe-like garments," particularly when some MUG wearers are highly offended by these terms as they equate them with women's clothing. But they're quite happy with MUG, as it's both an accurate description, and one that's not at all offensive.

I hope in the future you and others take the time to more thoroughly research the voluminous history behind Wiki articles before you vow to others that you're going to crusade against them (for as of yet unstated reasons). Please do all Wikipedians this service. Thank you for your time. Dr1819 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora!

I'm not angry at you! Just have a question! Are you going to constantly guard me? I mean no other editor has been reverting my contributions. It's only you. I mean I said sorry. Get over it! Don't need to get personal. What I did in Chalte Chalte trivia was added something new which i just found out. I've listed the site now. And there are many others. Rani was actually the first choice for the movie. Since, the page is already short, I added something. You have a problem? Aishwarya even stopped talking to Rani for what she did. But now it's cleared out. She was the first choice. Rani didn't stab her on the back. They were good friends before. Ash perhaps still doesn't know that Rani was the first choice of Chalte Chalte. Poor Ash! Still not working with Shahrukh for kicking her out! Anyway, you might not be aware of the whole thing. Watch koffee with karan! Shahrukh states these facts. Go to video search on yahoo and type koffee with karan! Well, I hope you don't watch me possesively. There must be something better to do besides watching me. You can work on Rani's page instead. Work on my version as a suggestion.

shez_15 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great!

It's great you're correcting my language. I think it's good enough what you did on Bas Itna Sa Khwaab Hai. But whenever i put anything in trivia about rani, you revert it. I am only stating facts. That's my job. You can restructure things. I don't mind. By the way, I had a question! Can I reward someone with an award? Am I allowed to?

shez_15 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

I don't question that the article is well researched, but as a researcher, knowing the source of claims is critical; if I were, as a Historian, to try to write a biography on Muhammad, I would need to be able to know where all of the statements, specifically, come from. I disagree entirely that it would make the article unwieldy; you might notice that Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. is very heavily referenced throughout, and it was selected as a featured article on the anniversary of Joseph Smith's birthday. You may also note that virtually all respectable historical articles include cited references, either in-text as in the Joseph Smith, Jr. article, or using numbers and foot- or endnotes. As I came to the article on Muhammad hoping to use it as a beginning point for research on specific aspects of his life, finding no citations was quite disappointing for me. The Jade Knight 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No harm done at all. I do understand your concern—the Joseph Smith article above includes citations from sources which may generally be considered quite dubious; however, seeing as many (if not most) of the sources critical of Smith are entirely unverified (and often tertiary sources themselves), they have been kept because there are some outspoken critics of Smith who insist that the article would be one-sided without them. In regards to Muhammad, I would recommend giving precedence to primary sources whenever possible, and when these are unavailable, more scholarly or professional secondary sources. As which source is used will not actually change the content of the article, I do not see how it would cause too much contention to simply use one or another arbitrarily.

You seem to have a great deal of knowledge concerning Islam and its foundings; perhaps you could help me. My goal is actually to write a comparative paper on Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Jr. as founding prophets of restoration religions. Seeing as the history of Muhammad is, in its particuliars, very difficult to verify unless one accepts the Qur'an and hadith as factual, or undertakes extensive historical scrutiny to try to "weed out" the less historically verifiable elements. All of that, however, is beyond the scope of my paper, so I plan to take an internal approach—from the vantage of Muhammad as he is referred to in the Qur'an and the hadith (I am aware of any other arguably primary sources available. If you know of any, I would be appreciative to learn of them). What would be most useful to me is a biography of Muhammad annotated with references primarily to the Qur'an and the hadith. Do you know of any such, available in print or (preferably) online? As I am largely unfamiliar with Islamic history, I am having difficulty trying to determine which biographies would be best in this regard, and I do not have time to read them all, unfortunately. It also may be worth noting that I cannot read Arabic, so I am unable to use untranslated works. The Jade Knight 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please!

Could you please help me on Rani Mukerji's page. Can we please keep my form. I just want those categories: Early Work, Breakout Role and Mainstream Cinema. It goes very well with her page and career graph. If you could only work alongside me, we can make the page so much better. We just need to cooperate. I promise I'll listen to you and compromise the most. If it doesn't work out, you can revert to prior version. I'll move the page back to its older version. Just revise it! Tell me what you don't want on the page. I'll remove it or you can too. If you have any suggestions, I can incorporate them. You will be given the right to reframe sentences, however you want to structure them. I can give you references if you ask on the validity of a fact. I have already removed Fanta and other minor things not needed on the page. Personal life was the whole problem. I guess I'll remove it until someone starts dating her. Thanks! We can work on it! shez_15 20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Khanna

Rajesh Khanna's awards + info on "hysteria" + some biography details added along with sources. Haphar 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hey! Thanks so much for your advice. I think you're right about the breakout role. I just thought she had a lulled career graph after Kuch Kuch Hota Hai with many average earners. Then, after Saathiya, she had simultaneous hits. But i guess we can make a breakout role for her when she retires. Anyway, pa7 and others edited the page and made it great! By the way, I'm not touching the Rani's page for a while now. Disputes just make me go crazy! I thought in the meanwhile I could create more articles on her links to movies which I find interesting. I don't think I'll make a page for every movie! Well, I have exams coming up too! So, I won't bother you guys much for the next month. Have fun with work! shez_15 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dia Mirza

Hi, Zora, I've got some problems over at the Dia Mirza article. Two guys are there: one wants his homepage be displayed there at all costs and the other wants a mediator (I think it's such a small matter -- why a mediator?) to resolve the "conflict". If you have time, maybe you could have a look? I'd be eternally grateful. ;) Best regards, --Plumcouch 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'll remove protection in a few days unless I hear from you sooner. Tom Harrison 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

you make big mistakes

salam. I'm a shiite and I should tell you:

1- some of the shiite are Persian and the others are Turk, Arab and etc. So the fight between Safavids and Ottomans isn't important for some of us.

2- Shiites have never used star and crescent as their symbol so they don't familiar with it. We preffer to use mousqe or Shahada as the symbol or any other symbol which relates to Islam in our minds.

3- Shahada as I know has only one form and we use from what «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  has designed in farsi wikipedia, although most of Persian are Shiite.

I guess you aren't familiar with Islam and Shiite too.--Sa.vakilian 03:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

shahada«شهادتَین»(which means two confesses)is the words that you say when you want to become Muslim and repeat it in each pray(salat). Absolutely there isn't anything but I believe to one God(Allah) and Mohammad is his prophet.«أشهدُ ان لا اله الا الله و اشهد انّ محمدا رسول الله»

So there isn't any difference betweeen shi'a and Sonni. But what shi'a said isn't added to it. It is:«اشهد انّ علیا ولي الله» and we say it in Azan.--Sa.vakilian 07:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Help! Borobudur

Just did a major rewrite on a previously very choppy piece on Borobudur, the section on Interpretation, however, I have nearly nil background in Buddhism, some of the texts cited I can't find any other ref to - can you have a quick look please? Or suggest someone who might have requisite smarts? (I haven't forgotten that jewelry stuff, btw, just been real byusy on some Ancient Greece translations).Bridesmill 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (I think ) Have moved the ref to a footnote, recovered some of the overwrite; the {fact} tags though, now you are making me go to the library & dig out Miksic; as this came from the Dutch article & all the rest of the facts check out ok I was fairly confident (plus it makes eminent sense) The bit about the Burmese quote, very germane to the impact construction had on the economy; I'll dig up the ref, there is some evidence out there that after the completion the stability of the Sailendra went to heck, likely as result of economy; so off to more reading.Bridesmill 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ads in Mirza's article

Hi, Zora, just noticed you removed the Ads again - it will be to no avail. Just check the last four to five comments on the discussion page. These anons are slowly but surely starting to get on my nerves. Best regards, --Plumcouch 22:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My edits

Got your message, but I do not quite get what you are refering to. Thank you.--CltFn 22:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read a number of those scholars and I disagree with your categorization , though like you I may not be able to vouch for all of them. As far ar Reza , he is definitely in the bridging the divide category as you will quickly see when you read his book.I you look at his sources , which are listed at the end of his book you will since a staggering list of Islamic as well as non-Islamic sources. And what he writes is exactly that , what I might describe as a synthesis of several views structured into a unified vista. Furthermore I do not , what you mean as traditional Islamic training, since this is a subjective standard . --CltFn 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Historiography

Based on what you say , I think you have a misunderstanding on the meaning of that word. Historiography is defined as the writing of history based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials and composition of these materials into a narrative subject to scholarly methods of criticism. However I do see the point that you are bringing up , since this word is subject to ambiguity and possible misinterpretation by the readers, who are likely to miss the subtle difference between the word historiography and history. Somehow I feel that the word historian is too broad , since this word does not imply any real adherance to standards of verifiable research. Historiographer on the other hand does imply an examination of the methodology used in research and the use of actual historical evidence and primary sources--CltFn 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination

Please accept it Zora. Please. --Aminz 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I am more abrupt and short-tempered than you; be sure. Please do not forget that you have too many friends as well. Guess what, I will dishonestly secretly inform all your friends about your RfA. The RfA will be up for a week. Who checks the Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship link frequently? btw, who are the Shia/Iranian editors you have conflict with? Maybe I can be helpful since I am both Shia and Persian. Maybe. --Aminz 02:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me chat a bit with ManiF and Zereshk about your adminship first. Maybe it works, maybe not. I hope it does. --Aminz 02:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I had a chat with ManiF about your adminship. Based on our conversation, it seems I can be of no help here. Zereshk has not responded me yet, but I found his opinion about you here: , it is in Persian, you can't read. It is about your views on Shiasm. With high probability, Zereshk will reply me back the same thing. Again, I don't think I would be able to be of any help here either. I sometimes doubt who I am. Am I really a Muslim? Am I really a Shia? I think I am. Today someone who knew me for awhile told me that I am not. He told me I have no relationship with God and that is true. I used to have, but not anymore. But at least I have not forgotten to use the term “God” in my writings. I used the word “God” several times here. At least I have something to cling to. Tiny but pure. Enough for me not to lose my hope. --Aminz 09:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

May I say that it is absolutely disgusting that discussions about a user are held in a language a user cannot understand. To non-Farsi speakers, it looks like malicious gossip and conspiratorial.--Ahwaz 11:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this

Please contribute here to take a user out of wiki who vandalizes

Apparently there is an RFC impending, see User talk:Gurubrahma and here- apparently I support Zora the vandal, see also here for evidence about my apparent evil alliance with Zora.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

an advice

salam.

I'm the guy who debate you about Shahada in Islam. I'm Persian so if there's any mistake in my text, please forgive me. I spoke with Zeresk and also read Amins opinion about you. I don't want to guide on he basis of this narrow information, but I found you an eager person without expert knowledge about Islam. So I want to introduce some good books.

1-If you want to become familiar with theology of Shi'a, Please read "The History of Islamic Philosophy" which has been written by Henry Corbin And I guess ha has several books about Shi'a and Islam. Also his books are philosophical and he use phenomenological methodology.

2- If you don't have enough knowledge, please read "Shia in Islam" and "Quran in Islam, which have written by Allameh Tabatabaei . He wrote these books, because an American professor wanted to introduce Shiite to American academic society. But understanding these books doesn't need academic knowledge.

3- Also you can read "Islam:AN Introduction" which has written by Annemarie Schimmel and "Understanding Islam" which has written by Frithjof Schuon .

I can introduce some books about politics in Shi'a and some books about Iran if you want.

I hope The God guide you and me to real truth.--Sa.vakilian 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Muhammad

I would agree with the way you put it is better. However I thought the way it was said before was pussy-footing around the issue a bit. I just tried to clarify it. I'm sure it goes without saying but I didn't mean anyone any disrespect.--Alan Frize 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bindi

Sorry to say, I am getting why people find you a pain. So the occasional Hindu woman beset in Hawaii by an alien culture renounces use of the Bindi. Big deal. This must rank with your assertion that you have seen endless women dancing Bharatnatyam on stage with their breasts uncovered. ImpuMozhi 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear, good, all-forgiving Zora auntie, I am sorry, I really am. You are a blessing to WP -- think of all those specimens out there. I have been spending all this time thinking how best to amend the above, while making the point that every oddity on earth need not get equal time on WP. please please please... accept my apology. ImpuMozhi 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Only two of those several women are without Bindis, and how do you know that they are even Hindu?? Let me tell you that you are misinformed in both 'white for widow' and 'urban woman' affairs, but that for later. I am rewording to say 'traditional', so as to make room for the odd deviant. If you have a reference for a Hindu community where the Bindi is not traditional, that would be very noteworthy, please let me know. ImpuMozhi 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I like to think of myself as being adept at language and wording, but just see the influence of context -- I read the "new fashion" statement and trotted out the 'always'. Bad day. Why don't Wikipedians ever interact except to argue?? Structural flaw. Take care, ImpuMozhi 22:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting opinion of Muslim editors

Hello! (I know you're not Muslim but you're very knowledgeable on the subject.) Could you please stop by Talk:Christianity and give your opinion? We are debating whether the word 'monotheism' should be included in the intro to the Christianity article. According to most dictionaries, the definition of monotheism is The dogma or belief that there is one God. Now, all Christians believe there is one God and all Christian creeds (such as the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Creed) profess a belief in one God. The point of contention is the Holy Trinity. Christians believe that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit all make up one essense of God, i.e. are three parts of one God (known as hypostasis). Now, several editors think that because this is different from the Islamic view of Tawhid--and they alledge Muslims think Christians are not monotheistic, but tritheistic--we cannot say Christianity is monotheistic like is done in the Islam article. Many editors content, however, that the definition of monotheism is based solely on belief, not truth. So if Christians believe their God is one God, they are by definition monotheistic, even if they may not be right. All it takes to be monotheistic is to believe there is one God. Others, however, think we can only say "Christianity is a monotheistic religion according to its followers." Again, some editors (including myself) have issue with this because it's basically like saying "Christianity believes it believes that there is one God," which of course is redundant. In my opinion, monotheism by definition is the belief! None-the-less, we would like to know from a Muslim editor: 1) Do Muslims view Christianity as tritheistic? 2) Even if so, considering Christians still believe there is one God, are they still not monotheistic? Sorry for the long post, but there's a lot of debate I had to summarize. Thanks, —Aiden 21:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Zereshk's personal attacks

I think you should report him for his incivil remarks and his accusations against you . The best way to deal with such editors is not to ignore them, but to take action against them. --Inahet 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you deal with it, but if he does go way over the line, please do notify the admins. I don't think anyone should suffer this kind of abuse. --Inahet 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

the troll

I know, he stalked me too. I unceremoniously issued two rangeblocks, let's see if that buys us peace until 11:05 UTC tomorrow :) dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

bragging

It's not about bragging, its about highlighting how well developed the science was, thats why it is in. --Irishpunktom\ 12:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Satanic Verses

Hi Zora, I think you were once involved in the article on The Satanic Verses, right? I've finally expanded that article with a plot summary, want to have a look? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sushmita Sen in Main Aisa Hi Hoon

Hi, Zora, I noticed you removed the comment about Main Aisa Hi Hoon in Sushmita Sen's article. I've seen both movies, I am Sam, and Main Aisa Hi Hoon and think it's pretty obvious that MAHH is a remake. I didn't meant to make it sound like an accusation or as something to play down Sushmita Sen's ability as an actress, merely to state the fact that Sen had the Michelle Pfeiffer role in the movie. Can't we let it in? --Plumcouch 21:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Zora, thanks for your swift reply. Don't worry - it takes more to discourage me and I have too much fun here to just leave this place. As to your reply: I will check out this Bollywood and plagiarism article and maybe, I can contribute. Yours, truly, --Plumcouch 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove

I don't think you should remove those facts because they are great achievements. Having a foreign audience of 50,000 people watch your movies with subtitles says a lot about global cinema coming together. The facts that she was on the power list is a tremendous honor. we shouldn't remove that too. You need to put something on the page. It is so bland, it simply talks about seven famous movies of her and that too in no details. It's so boring. If you keep adding facts, one day, we will have a lot of information to divide the text into sections and make it detailed. Lastly, Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke are Rani's major films post Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, you can't just leave a blank for four years after KKHH and put Saathiya. People want to know what was going on in these four important years. I only highlighted 2000. Also, I'm not trying to copy a format from other Indian actresses which only have four major movies talked about on their pages. I am looking at Lindsay Lohan's page and making it a bit like that. It will take a while but only if you cooperate. I don't mind if you restructure the sentences but don't take away important facts unless useless. Thanks. --shez15 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts

I put only power list on Rani's page. I didn't add no.1 actress. The power list also applies to a filmfare award. The no.1 position on the power list gets you the Filmfare Power Award. First it was Amitabh Bachchan and Shahrukh Khan, and then, Shahrukh next year again and Yash Chopra this year. But i just put rani was the female on these lists. Aishwarya Rai was on the first list and then disappeared. And then it was Rani on the next two years as the only female in a male-dominated industry. A big achievement. I simply put power list since it relates to filmfare awards and it's not journalistic since the no.1 position gets an award. it's not a biased poll rather a researched and highly prestigious verdict. And i didn't say HDJPK and CCCC were hits, just put average and i put commercial success because they were popular movies back in the day and a lot of people went to see it so the movie gained money but didn't win awards or critical acclaim nor a status of the biggest hits. But what are we going to put in the four years gap after kuch kuch hota hai. if i write a detailed analysis like i did for breakout role, you revert it. i just thought if i put facts you wouldn't revert them. you know once we gather a lot of facts, we can divide the text and make it detailed only if you let my edits stay there. it is a process. i can't make a Lindsay Lohan page in one day. I also put everything in order for now. You guys put temptation part after 2005 which is ridiculous. And also, i don't know about a hundred years but for right now, she is the most hyped actress in Bollywood and will be so for the next five years. so let us inform foreigners on her and that is why i put the 50, 000 people fact, since it invites global audience to the attraction and favors Bollywood viewers. Lindsay Lohan won't be remembered after 50 years, but still she has a detailed page. So what you said earlier doesn't make sense. Don't remove my facts. Thanks! --shez15 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Zora how are you? Did you notice the changes Sholay went through lately? Its in a good shape. And more resourced inputs, and also enhancing the section "Production" can lift it at least to a Good article standard. Your help is sought. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That was really severe copyediting. However, imo, bulleting should be avaoided except in the section of Trivia. Also the legacy reads a bit short, given the huge cultural impact the film had in India. That can be incorporated in Response though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! You live in Honolulu. That must be a great place. Yes, divorcing his wife has probably reflected in Amie's fan number. and he is aging...potato-ish :). By the way, do you think it's time we gave away more hints of the ending in Rang De Basanti artilce? And we'll try to give more info on roles in Sholay soon. And again, the argument will continue in India, pre-1947 India etc. :)Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

DCH

Approved the version. Thanks for the hard work.-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Zora, I'm currently cleaning some of the articles User:Prin and all his sock puppets worked on. I noticed that he claims Tamil actors generally earn more than Bollywood actors. In Rajinikanth's article it was noted that he was payed 15 crores and that only Jackie Chan earns more than him (in Asia). Erm -- is there any truth to it? Kareena Kapoor is reported to have been payed 2.5 crores (for that Harry Bajewas flick). Is it realistic to assume that Rajinikanth actually earns 15 crores? Since I know about Tollywood next to nothing, I thought I'd ask you - since I couldn't come up with anything on Google. Best regards, --Plumcouch 18:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC) PS. About shez - Rani's arctile looks fine to me as it currently is. What do you think? If it won't stay like this, I'll talk to Shez. PPS. I'm thinking about running for Admin, since there are so few Admins on the project but I'm afraid that I'm too un-experienced, too hesitant, too friendly and too bad at English. What is your personal opinion about that? Don't worry, I can take it. ;)

Hi, Zora. All right, I keep the salary out. Some actors have mentions of salary over at IMDb. If you look at this you can just see Aamir Khan's salary. O_o I can't believe he's earning that much according to the Internet Movie Database. What do you think about Rani Mukerji's article? - I think it looks okay. As for the whole admin thing - I skimmed through the page where they decide and it seems like they have harsh temperatures over there, sometimes. I'd be honoured if you'd nominate me, but I'm not sure if I'd really make it. Best regards, --Plumcouch 00:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC) PS. I cleaned up Rajinikanth, Ajith Kumar and Joseph Vijay. They are not perfect, but if you have time and patience, could you have a small look at them? I think I removed most of the fangush - except for one Anon who keeps reverting them once daily, but I'm used to that.

Islam page

Hi, Can you please check and tell why I am not able to edit Islam page. Siddiqui 16:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Karbala

Yeah, I have to say Chaldean's etymology is clearly a folk etymology and he does not understand basic historical changes in the Syriac language alone. For an Assyrian-in-the-meaning-of-an-Aramaic-speaker, he's not showing much awareness of historicity or logic. So yes, please help. em zilch 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

RDB edit

Hi! Someone added Farhan Bhatti (???) as Brig General Dyer in the cast of Rang De Basanti. It sounded spurious and I removed it, as IMDb did not generate anything respectable for that name. Do you have any idea?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Persianism by Arabs

Hi Zora, I see you commented somewhere on the "trainwreck" of Anti-Persianism by Arabs. I've AfD'ed it now, I don't think it's really salvagable, or do you? Lukas 08:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

help?

Can you comment here? http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#recent_changes I am concerned that User:CrazyInSane and User:Codex Sinaiticus will not give up easily - and will not allow for any compromise whatsoever. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Zora, you think it ok to creat a article about this guys? peace. --Striver 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Labeling opposing editors

Please refrain from using paharse like "Zereshk and his friends" to group opposing editors and discredit them. Discuss the topic, not the individuals, User:InShaneee has warned you about this perviosuly. --ManiF 00:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Grouping and labeling opposing editors, in any form or shape, is unacceptable and you have been warned about it before.--ManiF 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I could see where it could be condescending maybe? In any case... just to make things simpler want to try to say Zereshk and those who agree with him or support him? Hope you're doing well :) gren グレン 11:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

user:ManiF has accused me of making a personal attack. Do you think the following statement is a personal attack?:

This nomination page should be taken as a good example of what votestacking is. I guess I should invite people, who will vote without reviewing the article and the discussions on its proposed deletion but will do so as favor for me. How fair would that be? -- Inahet 06:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

God, when will the madness stop? She's labeling this as a personal attack "I could write pages and pages on Persian anti-Arabism, which would include many examples of simple to complex anti-Arabism actions by Persians. The web is chockfull with that stuff. But I'm not here to turn Misplaced Pages into a soapbox or a battleground. I can't say the same thing for the writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article." Yeah, Misplaced Pages is such a freakin fun place when you have characters like that! --Inahet 07:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Links in Islam

"If we're going to link to the pro-Islam DMOZ directory, it's only fair to link to the anti-Islam directory."

Why is that exactly? How are the anti-Islam links relevant to the article? Aren't they more appropriate for Criticism of Islam? BhaiSaab 17:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you said. Could you show me the discussion that Karl keeps referring to, regarding the decision to include the criticism links? Thanks. BhaiSaab 18:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Aisha

Last time I read Aisha, the section "Young marriage age controversy" was entirely original research. Moved by your comment on my talk page, I re-read the article and was very upset to find it in the same sorry state. The argument that the whole story may have been invented cuts no ice because the entire history of the early Islam may have been invented. We either take the traditional version or dispute everything, so far we tend to do the former alongside most scholars. Pecher 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from spamming other users' talk pages to rally support. This highly belligerent tactics is very poorly regarded. Pecher 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen you producing reliable sources saying that there is a dispute. Pecher 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Past president of ISNA is a random guy; it's up to him to believe what he wants to believe or to tell non-Muslims what he finds it expedient to tell. There is no indication that he represents a large current among Muslim or academic scholars. Pecher 22:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I realize there are no precise analogies, but wouldn't that be like citing Ralph Reed as an expert opinion on Christianity? ISNA could be cited as a reputable source on Muslim identity politics in North America, perhaps even prevailing contemporary opinion among North American Muslims, but not on events of the seventh century!

One thing that's been gradually dawning on me is that WP:NPOV is not to be construed to the detriment of WP:V and WP:RS. Our goal shouldn't be to find the middle ground between all of our points of view. This really hit me when I saw articles such as Earth and Universe - a very large number of people, it would seem, believe these to have been created by God at a much later date than given. Their opinion doesn't count, because they are not acknowledged experts in the respective fields. At most, they get mentions as dissenters as in Evolution - this does not require us to hedge statements of fact.

Similarly, what average Muslims think about the events of the seventh century is completely irrelevant, except as a source for their own opinions.Timothy Usher 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, "I'm disappointed. Websites, quotes, a book, and you STILL don't believe there's a dispute. Zora 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)"

I didn't say there wasn't a dispute. Bukhari is unambiguous in this regard, but I only just started going through the evidence for the other side. I am only weighing in generally on the meaning of WP:NPOV as it relates to ] and WP:RS, and specifically that there is no reason to think the former president of ISNA a reliable source on this matter (even more so when the tone of the article in which he is quoted is considered.)Timothy Usher 23:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

I could use some help on the Muhammad page. The usual -- Muhammad was a pedophile, Islam spreads by violent conquest, etc. I'm always trying to keep the article neutral and now it's being pushed towards an anti-Islamic stance. Zora 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded on the Muhammad talk page. joturner 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, whether editors are "Muslim" or "anti-Muslim" shouldn't be the point.Timothy Usher 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, your user talk page spamming of editors you've designated as "Muslim" has resulted in the negligent mischaracterization of cited material. You might consider being more careful about the quality of those upon whom you call for aid.Timothy Usher 05:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, your relentless imputation of underlying motivations is approaching personal attack, as did your previous characterization of "Anti-Muslim editors". I ask that you cease personalizing the discussion, and begin a scholarly non-partisan discussion of sources. Thanks.Timothy Usher 09:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Shu'ubiyya

There's an article about Shu'ubiyya.--Sa.vakilian 04:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nöldeke

No, 1860 is not very recent. (What is, anyway?) But where else should I put him? I think the section should be renamed, leave out the recent.

And it's not my intention to convince anyone, nor to be classified as an Orientalist. All I want to do is present different, scholarly views. Feel free to add contrary views. --Benne _(talk) 10:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression that you're a little too sensitive about views that do not conform with the mainstream Muslim point-of-view, easily disregarding them as orientalist in nature, or as upsetting to Muslims. If you look at my edits to the article, I think you can notice that I have had no intention to present partial information. --Benne _(talk) 10:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I share you intention to stay neutral, but that also means presenting views that are not accepted by Muslims or Orientalists.

By the way, I don't see why Nöldeke should be disregarded as a reliable source just because his work was issued more than 140 years ago. I believe there are currently no scholars who have such a profound knowledge of both Syriac and Arabic as he had. And as far as I know, there has not been much progress in the field of Qur'anic research since. --Benne _(talk) 10:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your advice

Hi Zora. I'm thinking of staying as far away as possible from articles that have remotely anything to do with Islam, because some hostile editors, many of whom are admins, aggressively pursue a policy of censorship and personal attacks. Some of these admins, I can say from past experience, are so incivil, that there seems to be no point in discussing anything with them. I'm sure you have a lot of similar experiences, so I'll highly value your advice on this matter. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Clothing Article

The only thing I reverted was a paragraph put in by an anonymous user. It appeared vandalistic in nature and hence was reverted. There was no major revert, just a sentence or two.--Jamott 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are right about the edit conflict issue. I'm using VandalProof and have sometimes saved a revert, only to go into the history and see that my revert was rejected and someone else has rolled back the article. Strange.--Jamott 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

I noticed that there were a lot of anti-Muslim statements made in the article. I'll try to make it neutral again, but coming from a Muslim editor, certain editors will want to take a jump at me. BhaiSaab 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

E-Mail

Please check your email, Zora. Thanks. BhaiSaab 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sent a reply. BhaiSaab 20:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

You bet, I found it strange in the state I originally discovered it in without reference to the controversy and I recall that the Aisha age controversy section was a bit of an achievement for that article so it makes sense for the Muhammad article to benefit for all of that previous work. It's tough to keep with the anti-NPOVers isn't it (even one's own personal opinions on a given subject)? Netscott 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get why Hadith are being characterized as editors' personal opinions. Would someone please explain this to me?Timothy Usher 01:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuation of the laundry system...

I saw an article about it in the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia, and I heard that it was getting publicity in Belgium as well. But look, I guess this is your website and you decide what goes up. I just thought I would try to contribute to it.

3RR on Muhammad

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

This block will expire in twelve hours. Add {{unblock}} to your talk page or e-mail me to contest the block. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaow, that must hurt. I know that misstakes can happen, you have my sympathy :( --Striver 07:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher's not doing much in the way of helping his good faith editing karma (and sooner of later he'll no doubt come to understand that "what goes around", "comes around"). Although he may be technically right in having filed 3RR against you, all of your edits were done in good faith and were warranted. If you're still blocked when you read this message I would ask for an {{Unblock}} and explain that you'll stay away from Muhammad for a period of 24 hours (essentially say you'll behave). Feel free to edit this last bit if you decide to try for an unblock. Netscott 09:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put a watch on your talk page. If you need assistance with contacting others (admins,etc.) about this just say so here. I'm going to be in and out today so I can't guarantee that I'll respond very promptly but I'll do my best to assist you if you have need. See you. Netscott 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note as well that the blocking admin (me) has the page watchlisted and will be on for a couple hours more. Blocking is a preventitive measure and not a punitive one (in my opinion at least). While edit-warring is about the most counterproductive activity a contributor can engage in, there's no reason to punish you for it. If you promise to stay away from editing the article on Muhammad for at least a day or two, and you can give me your word that you will do your best to refrain from edit warring on it or any other article in the future, I will have no problem unblocking. I would also note that your case was exactly four reverts and wasn't that destructive; blocking was just to prevent it from getting out of hand. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora must realize that edit warring is not the way to resolve disputes. She reverted my edits on Muhammad within minutes and poured lots of emotion and uncivilities on talk page. It might be a good idea for her to cool down and re-evaluate her behavior before coming back. Pecher 09:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Following the e-mail you sent me in which you stated that you believed the block was unjust, I reviewed all of your five edits to Muhammad in the last twenty-four hours. You questioned specifically whether this edit was a revert, and after looking at again quite extensively, I still have to say that I believe it to be. Yes, you incorporated what the anon added back into your edit; however, the full effect of your edit was to revert the anon's blanking of the section--as the anon's blanking did appear to be accidental (or perhaps even bad-faith), I could let this one slide under the rvv exception clause, but even if the edit were ruled out as an exception, you would still be in violation of 3RR with four other reverts in a twenty-four hour span. The other four edits, while not all a cut-and-dry revert to a previous item in the history, do still seem quite clearly to be reverts. In any case, my above offer still stands should you choose to accept. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR violation at all. This edit Zora changes wording... User:Yom had agreed with Zora's wording but used awkward language and she cleaned it up. The edit you showed was completely unrelated and wasn't a revert of that issue. Zora, I do recommend you be careful... gren グレン 10:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that she marked the first edit you cited as a copyedit, she was actually reverting to reintroduce the terms "who may have been," which she restored in her previous and following revert. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You've now been unblocked. No need to restate what I said in my e-mail to you. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora, although you are not Muslim and we had some non-agreement related to Caliphate too. But I think you are not biased and a good person for Misplaced Pages. Please next time give me a message instead of reverting for the 3rd time. I will support you. --- Faisal 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the company your're sharing now, Zora. Enjoy. Pecher 17:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal attack Pecher and what is "These is"? --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed my grammar. Where do you see a personal attack here? Pecher 17:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora should have never been blocked in the first place. BhaiSaab 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

Zora, when you say you rely on contemporary Western academic views to support your edits and then you include in Aisha murky apologetic websites just because they impart some "good news" that Aisha may have been older than nine, that smacks of incerity. When I present to you reliable Western source essentially relying on Muslim sources, which says something you dislike, you accuse me of lying. I'm afraid it's pointless to engage any further with you; you have consistently failed to assume good faith on my part. As I've said above, good luck. Pecher 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sholay - after another copyedit

Content-wise, it's ok. But don't u think the "response" section has become somewhat choppy? with so many oneliners? IMO, paragraph style suites better for this section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Muhammad dispute

Hi Zora, I just saw your dispute with Timothy over the Muhammad issue. I must say, while I see your point, I'd spontaneously tend towards Timothy's side. It's a tricky business, of course. Misplaced Pages's NPOV rules, the way they are formulated now, don't seem to cater well for cases where conflicting claims stem not only from conflicting POVs, but from radically different discourses with different modes of judging "truth" - i.e. a scientific and a religious discourse in this case. I don't think the answer can be to treat this just like any other POV conflict, contrasting the two views as if they were alternatives "on the same level", so to speak. But I haven't looked too deeply into the specifics of your disagreement yet, so I have no concrete solution to propose at this point. If you want someone to mediate, I haven't got too much time right now, but maybe later - give me a shout if things get hot, okay? Lukas 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Farooq

The spammer has been blocked for 24hrs.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I only noticed him because of his Einstein spam.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fornication

Zora, I've been writing the article on fornication, and I've left space for an Islamic perspective. If you're able to give a paragraph or two, it would be very helpful. If not, perhaps you might be able to give me some advice? A J Hay 07:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sholay

Hey, can you look at this edit of yours? It removed the reference so now reference #2 is empty... I didn't want to fix it since I wasn't sure if it would be correct just to re-add it. Thanks. gren グレン 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting Muhammad article

Zora. Please post not to un protect request on here. The change suggested by Timothy and Editorius are not acceptable. Please stop this unprotection. Thank you. --- Faisal 11:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello, Zora, I thought about this long and hard and went to the RFA page quite often to see how these things work. Though I know I won't pass the Diablo Test of contributing to at least one featured article, I thought I'd give it a try, so if you come back from the two! urgent! proff-reading projects you have (good luck with them, BTW) and you still think I'm worthy of being an Admin, could you nominate me? I'd be eternally grateful. Best regards, --Plumcouch 13:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

List of popular Bollywood films

I have an idea of maintaining this list in terms of user votes.. is this idea already discussed?--Anshuk 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Dr1819

An RfC has been opened concerning Dr1819s behavior surrounding men's fashion articles. Since you have been involved in discussing his behavior on these articles, you may wish to certify the dispute or add your thoughts on the issue. Thanks. Shell 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

I have proposed a solution to the current edit war over categorizing clothing articles at Talk:History_of_Western_fashion#Resolving_the_Edit_War. Please join the discussion. - PKM 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Head, Hawaii

One of the pictures on the Diamond Head, Hawaii article is up for nomination to become a featured picture! You can see the picture here. Please add a supporting vote on its nomination page here or, more specifically, here, if you feel it's worthy. Thanks for your help! Cathryn 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Category marked for deletion

You may be interested.

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16#Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad

BhaiSaab 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

I am a new user at wikipedia. So I don't know what to do in this situation. The situation at our article is that whatever changes we make, whatever things we discuss, all changes are reverted back again and again. The last change which I think would correspond to the version, which I think was balanced was http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Banu_Nadir&oldid=59433750 . Some people are not accepting any other source other than Jewish writings, and not even Islamic sources like Ahadith. They are not even ready to put Muslims opinion (not as part of the fact, just as an opinion of other party) on the page. As I believe that the novice reader has the right to hear story from both sides. Your efforts will be appreciated, if you can look into this matter. Thank you! SS 14:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend you to read the articles of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, who himself has been student of two great Islamic scholars of twentieth century, Amin Ahsan Islahi who wrote Tadabbur-ul-Qur'an, an accredited Tafsir and Abu ala Maududi, who wrote another Tafsir, Tafhim-ul-Qur'an. Articles written by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Amin Ahsan Islahi explain very clearly the reasons of prosecutions by early Muslims. Unfortunately, most of their books are in Urdu, but some of their articles have been translated in English, which can be accessed through links given on Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and . I read some parts of Tadabbur-ul-Qur'an myself and wrote a small paragraph, which I included in Banu Nadir (now removed because the article is under dispute). Just to give you an idea, the paragraph is written below:

Muslims explanation for prosecution

Muslims hold that Constitution of Medina was first broken by Jews. At first instance, by not helping them against invaders and at the second instance, by helping invaders against Muslims. Muslims believe that the responsibility of spreading the religion was now unto Ishmaelites, rather than Israelites. According to Quran, ...(God) said, "I am appointing you (Abraham) a leader for the people". He replied, "and also my descendants"? God said, "My covenant does not include the transgressors" (2:124), You shall strive for the cause of God as you should strive for His cause. He has chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion - the religion of your father Abraham (22:78), and We thus made you an impartial community, that you may serve as witnesses among the people, and the Messenger serves as a witness among you (2:143). The prosection that followed was of special nature. Similar prosections can be found in Bible, when Moses asked his followers to kill all those who worshiped Golden Calf, kill your brother, friend, and neighbor (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 27) or with the principle by which Solomon expanded his empire. Destruction of nations, when they challenge the God (by disobeying the Messenger), either with natural disaster or with prosecution by believers can also be found in many examples from Quran and Bible, like Nation of Noah, Nation of Lot, and finally Jewish miseries after denial of Jesus. Quran also states, ... that whoever took a life, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind (5:32), and And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever... (4:93). Hence prosection of Jews and others was a special case and is no more considered applicable]].

And best of luck with your Tabari. SaadSaleem 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

TURKAN HATUN

When i was a little girl i read a book which took place in Khorezm Empire. It's like a fairy tale and cought me with it's magic. Since then i wanted to go to Urganj to see the Tilali Garden (i found out that it's still lies under the ground in Turkmenistan and old palace of Jelal Ed Din is not excavated yet).

I was looking for something about the woman called Turkan Hatun. I wanted to now more about the characters in the book and i learned a lot about Jelal Ed Din, Muhamed II... But data i found about her were very confusing.

According to that book, she was very cruel, ruled the great Khorezm Empire and she was a mother of shah Muhamed II, grand mother of a brave prince Jelal Ed Din but not very fond of him. She promoted the people of Kipchak but majority in Khorezm were Turkmenian. There was also mentioned very brave turkmen hero Kara Konchar and his maid... And that lasted untill Mongols conquered Khorezm 1221.

But now i found the information that she lived centuries ago and she was a wife of Sultan Melikshah who died in 1092.

As my country was under the Osman Empire for 500 years and their language had a great influence, i am aware that Turkan Hatun was not her real name, it's more like Turkish Lady and probably was used to describe more than one woman who had ipmact to the history of muslim people.

I would really apreciate if you know something about the Turkan Hatun who lived in Khorezm or where to find something about her.

Thanks a lot. Boka

Algerian Civil War

Hi Zora,

(I'm back! Sort of, but not often and not much - simply too much else to do these days...)

I know the Algerian Civil War isn't really up your street, but unfortunately nobody else on Misplaced Pages seems to have any significant interest in Algerian history, and somebody seems intent on removing all reference to the army arriving at massacre scenes and refusing to help/turning people back, despite this being thoroughly well-sourced in the article and on Talk (and, indeed, common knowledge.) It would be great if you could add this article to your watchlist. - Mustafaa 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Lomilomi Edits

Aloha Zora, Mahalo for your edits of the lomilomi article. You requested citations. I could not figure out how to do official citations, but I have now put all the citations on the talk page. Makana Chai 20:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

Back again. Hope all is well with you and yours. BYT 10:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindustani and Bollywood

As you are an expert in this subject, please consider editing this section on the Hindustani page to make it sound more cohesive. Thanks in advance. Jdas07 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

If I am required to remove this statement, then your statement here also qualifies as a personal attack. Please remove it. --uriah923 00:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force

any help would be appreciated.--D-Boy 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll send you an email in a bit

Dear Zora,

There is something I would like to ask you! I'll send you an email tonight! Most respectfully, --Aminz 07:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

WB + Kaaba as Hindu temple nonsense ... + Wikiproject Islam

First of all, welcome back!

Regarding the 'Kaaba as a Hindu temple' fantasy, the problem seems to be persistent. I've reverted additions of this to the Kaaba article more times than I care to remember (and I think you have too). I guess we just have to keep an eye on the article...

I've joined Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam and suggested a few more ideas in the renamed (not by me) Islam manual of style. I didn't know this project existed, but I was asked a few times to join the 'Muslim Guild' but felt a little suspicious about joining that project, and never did. What I wanted to ask you was, are editors still taking part in Wikiproject Islam (reason for asking: nobody else seems to be putting any ideas into the manual of style or discussing things in the project talk page) ? Thanks. MP (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sad

It is not good to lose you. You were making positive contributions in wikipedia and espacially in Islam related article. I feel sad after reading message on your user page. --- Faisal 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Subhash bose

Looks like he's caught your attention too. See the top of User:Blnguyen/Archive13 amongst other places. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back (even if it's just partially)

Hi, Zora, just wanted to welcome you back. You were dearly missed ("What would Zora do?") and as usual, we can use all the help we can get, especially since people have been very active by creating articles about South Indian Cinema - I don't know anything about it. Maybe that's a good thing in order to keep the articles neutral. Again, welcome back, best regards, --Plumcouch 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also very happy to see you back. BhaiSaab 18:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Howdie Zora. While I deeply appreciate your comments on my Arbcomm, they have been found confusing to others...They're a bit too brief. Arbcomm judges can't make assumptions of what you mean. Anyway, feel free to add whatever you want..There's several discussions on the Workshop page, including reviews of evidences, suggested findings of facts, etc. Merzbow and others still press that my allegations of bias in articles is fantasy and 'conspiracy theory'. This case is as much about the other editors involved in this dispute as it is about me, and it is as much about the bias-problems now too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency/Workshop

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency/Evidence

His Excellency... 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was glad to see your name again (though of course, not the most uplifting of circumstances) at arbitraion, and am happy to see your recent burst of edits. I hope you stick around and that your stress level doesn't get too high, even if that means mostly editing the (hopefully) more peaceful clothing and India articles, which is always preferred to a departure. As always, I wish you welll; tell me if there's anything I can do to help. :-) Dmcdevit·t 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Relax take a deep breath

Please stop working against me , regardless of your views about me . Lets work cooperatively , that would be for the best.--CltFn 03:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Historiography of Islam

My bad if the sentence with dense and hermetic style was relevant, I was primarily attempting at trimming superfluous language like "staid", "wipe the slate clean" and was actually not sure about the dense thing, but I removed it in the end because I was not sure if it wouldn't be POV if not sourced, at anyrate feel free to restore it if you beleive its relevant.--Tigeroo 07:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

Dear Zora, do you have any feedback on my work here  ? Thanks --Aminz 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much Zora. I have started doing a better job in wikipedia. Please have a look at Islam and anti-Semitism article (I've written the intro & introduction section) :). Not sure if they stick there once Pecher is back. --Aminz 10:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I also found something from Mark Cohen relating to the distressing quote of Maimonides:

"During his wanderings Maimonides also wrote the The Yemen Epistle, a famous letter to the Jews of Yemen, then experiencing severe persecution at the hands of their Muslim rulers. In it Maimonides describes his assessment of the treatment of the Jews at the hands of Muslims:

…on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael , who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us…. No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have…. We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, their absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear…. We have done as our sages of blessed memory have instructed us, bearing the lies and absurdities of Ishmael…. In spite of all this, we are not spared from the ferocity of their wickedness and their outbursts at any time. On the contrary, the more we suffer and choose to conciliate them, the more they choose to act belligerently toward us.

Mark Cohen however quotes Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, an specialist in medieval European Jewish history, who cautioned that Mainmoindes condemntion of Islam should be understood "in the context of the harsh persections of the twelfth century and that furthermore one may say that he was insufficiently aware of the status of the Jews in Christian lands, or did not pay attention to this, when he wrote the letter". Cohen, continues by quoting Ben-Sasson who argues that Jews generally had a better legal and security situation in the Muslim countries than in Christendom.

Doesn't make it good, but still it is something. --Aminz 10:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Hindi films

Hi Zora, welcome back! Let me get right to the point. I think we do not need the above mentioned article because half of the Hindi films don't even have articles on them. We have the category Hindi-language films and that has all the films that have articles on them. Even if we do expand the list, the majority will be filled with reds! I talked to the user who created it but I need some opinions. Thanx. Pa7 19:20, 5 August 2006

Thanks ref. Cinema of India article

I had been editing the Cinema of India article for a long long time, and I had asked about the criticism of India section (which you removed) before. But no one escept Splashprince responded. I had an urge to delete that section too (see the talk page of the article please) but since I'm a new user and this was my first dedicated edit, I wanted expert counsel. I was beginning to feel a little pissed that such an important article was being ignored by the Indian Wiki editors community, too, and was relieved to finally see someone other than me working at it. Another request: can you please inspire someone to concentrate on the article; I did all I could in my holidays, but now college has started, and I don't have all that time. Once again, Thanks, and sorry if I violated any wiki ettiquette by posting this request here; but I did not get a good response elsewhere. --Sshankar 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Keep it low stress. I'd rather see you here for 5 edits a day than gone for another month :) gren グレン 02:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I really should do more work at DP than here, too. I actually feel productive when I get something done there. It's nice knowing your work won't be undone :) Keep me updated if any good Islam related texts come through there... I'd like to see some more released... releasing some of Theodor Nöldeke's work would be a triumph although I'm not sure any translations were done before 1923.

This book? I am rambling. gren グレン 03:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw some of the mess at Hagarism... I stayed away for the most part. Tigaroo just added "Crone and Cook have not allowed any reprint of the book {{fact}}" ...is that so? I've never seen that before.

On happier issues... I have a few questions about Indian films. Do you think a needs infobox template would be good for films part of the Cinema of India project? Also, how about a rating system like they have for other projects... stub, A-Class, FA, etc... think they can / should be done?

Good luck with the Ramayana... P3 now? that's good :) I've been looking at a cool series called Historians' History of the World that has half a volume about Arabia and a bunch of other stuff. Of the 21 volumes I know of Google print has 16 or so. Pretty exciting looking. gren グレン 06:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CrazyInSane RfC

Just letting you know, I've opened an RfC regarding the conduct of CrazyInSane. Since you've interacted with him, I thought I should let you know. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/CrazyInSane.

hello

hello Zora! apologies for wasting your time.. but would it be too much to ask were i to request you to share your views at the rfc being held at Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#RfC? it's regarding the source "The Sealed Nectar" by al-Mubarakpuri (all the information regarding it is present somewhere in that mess of a talk page, namely here - although suffice to say it got the green light from the MWL and University of Medina) and whether or not it qualifies under WP:RS. we've been arguing (for ages) over whether it is a reliable source and the critiques have not been very consistent (the current contention is about the work supposedly not being "secular" enough). but anyway it would be extremely appreciated if you could add your thoughts, as i think you know a lot about islam-related sources. thank you! ITAQALLAH 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much for your fair analysis. much appreciated! ITAQALLAH 02:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

hi zora -wrt-Aishwarya Rai

Hey zora! Im sorry, but I didnt mean to criticize A. Rai.However everything written seems very biased! Her achievements have been glorified while her failures havent even been mentioned. Is it not true that all her films since 2002 have flopped? All the info seems like a tribute to her rather than basic information for the uninitiated! I'm also surprised that the Cannes incident hasnt even been mentioned! That sounds a little unfair!

BTW, you seem like a pro at this. Please enlighten me: How does one send / reply to messages. I've been a wikifan since quite some time, but have started editing only recently. And it seems I havnt done a good job in this particular case. I will reserve comments in future. Awaiting yur reply. Nikita.

Comment moved from user page

I moved a comment from your user page to your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 06:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Would really really like to talk to you. for the names that you say people have given you.

How do i get to contact you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.67.7 (talk • contribs)

Re:

Hi Zora. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'll keep the things you have said in mind for future edits.:) I'll slowly get a hang of it. I am very interested in learning about older actors/films, & I try & read up as much as possible on the same. Hopefully this will help me in gathering & contributing some info. So I'm definately going to join the Indian Cinema wikiproject. This is really embrssing, but could you please tell me how to join the Indian Cinema wikiproject? I checked it out in the help section but was unsuccessful. I'm really sorry for the trouble! :) Thanx. - Nikita niki 11:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kaaba Coordinates

Please note that I did not remove the coordinates of tha Kaaba. I simply put them in a coordinate template. If you would just look at the page you will probably see that the coordinates have actually been given a more prominent place on the page by this template. If you need further explanation, feel free to ask.--Dr who1975 22:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war at Black Stone

I'm currently involved in an edit war with BookwormUK at Black Stone. If you're not too busy, I could do with some help. Thanks. MP (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Update on dispute

BookwormUK, having realised that his/her edits about equating the Black Stone with the Shivling of Makkeshwar are not going to be permitted, has created a new article (which I thought about putting up for afd, but resisted) in which dogmatic assertions are made about these absurd claims. However, BookwormUK has inserted a link in the Black Stone article to his Shivling of Makkeshwar which I'm about to remove. MP (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FAO Zora

How dare you insult me by calling me a kook. You are simply demonstrating how narrow minded and ignorant you are by refusing to acknowledge the fact that there are other explanations apart from your own doctrines and beliefs.

Can I remind you of WP policy: "Harassing or Making Personal Attacks We have a clear policy on Misplaced Pages of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. " BookwormUK 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Insults and Accusations

Zora - your last post on my Talk page was the last straw. Not only do you call me a kook but you now accuse me of using anonymous IPs to mask my identity. Shame on you. You are now in contravention of WP policy.

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. BookwormUK 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to concur. You seem to have a disdain for the Hindu POV as you have stated in the Witzel talk page and the AfD. I suppose myself and bookworm are now two lone kooks?Bakaman _Bakatalk

Hinduism is not Hindutva but Hindutva is Hinduism. The shivaling case is merely a conspiracy theory and should be treated as such. There is a history of idols being placed in the Kaaba before Mohammed destroyed them. There is a high chance of the theory (in some form) being true.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I second this. Zora has had a history of attacking Hindu users on Misplaced Pages. Please watch her.Netaji 20:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And "Hindutva" means "being Hindu". If you hate "Being Hindu" I equate that with hating Hinduism. Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The history that Zora has is of attacking "religious extremists" be they Muslim or Hindu. Not all Hindus equate Hindutva with Hinduism , so that line of talk is specious. Haphar 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority do. In India, a democracy, the majority of Hindus profess hindutva (BJP, shiv Sens, ULFA, Shiromani Akali Dal, JDU, etc.). In a democracy, majority rules, the majority of Indians perhaps are not Hindutva-supporters, but the majority of Hindus are.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I don't appreciate your characterization of me as a fantasist . I thought Zen buddhists would be calm and dignified, I can't believe what I heard from you though.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

iawtc

it's funny, I was looking over an old article she vandalized last year as well and it led to this forum...and she is still vandalizing pages. she's the kook. she has a neurotic history of attacking a lot of people on wikipedia giving it a bad name. just look at all the negative comments she has. she should have been banned long ago. After her craziness, I didn't even bother to stay posting on this site. wonder what the owner of the site would think of her obsessive conduct - mil

drv

Zora, take a look at this: --Striver 11:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Sharia

Hi Zora, this seems a bit stupid to me, especially regarding the articles which are now in this category. maybe you want to do something about it (I'm not familiar with deletion or rename procedures on en and don't want to get involved). greetings, --Elian 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Tabari

Hi. Aminz tells me you may know where to find Tabari's History online. Please tell me this is true! --Ephilei 02:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I start Introduction to Arabic in February. --Ephilei 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Salman Khan

Hello, Zora, there is a fan of Salman Khan's page who claims that Salman popularised the name "Prem" - while I think this is possible, it really needs a reference and belongs into an article like Prem (name) or anything. He wrote half a novel on the discussion page of Khan and I responded. Could you have a look? Best regards, --Plumcouch 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Linkspammer

I took care of the request that you placed on the Administrator Intervention against Vandalism page. Academic Challenger 10:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

Hi: I should perhaps have let someone else know earlier but I was so tired of this article I never wanted to see it again; think I should clear up the loose ends now. I followed an RfA here, and spent a long time trying to argue the case for a more balanced reading of the scholar in question with a POV-pusher who guards the article carefully. The recent introduction of the Living People Standard or whatever together with the discussion at the Witzel page suggested I should bring this to someone's attention, and you are one of the two obvious candidates. Please note the extraordinary discussion on the talk page, in particular the justification of non-academic viewpoints being exalted in religious studies. Hornplease 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dress Code

I've moved your comment from my personal page to the Talk:Dress code (Western) discussion page; hope that's OK with you. I've also written a followup there. Feel free to interact with me there.

Dear Arch Nemesis

I would like you to comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)#poll for standard transliteration. And please link it to others who are involved in Arabic. thanks. Cuñado - Talk 01:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Aisha's age at marriage

I ordered a booklet written by Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi on the issue of Aisha's age at marriage. I was so excited, when it came that I scanned the whole booklet and put it on wikibooks, as I didn't find any copyrights statement on the book. The link can be found on the article. Cheers! TruthSpreader 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam

I edited this article and I would like you to see this article. I have found a new way to get around the criticism by other wikipedian, and the procedure is to splash the whole article by expert opinions, "in quotes", so that nobody can change them. But I am learning. Cheers! TruthSpreader 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Zora!

Longtime! Anyway, I put a new poster on Veer-Zaara's page. The poster on the cd covers. It has the main characters in it. Rani needs to be credited first. Why don't you guys get it? It's like a Devdas case. Madhuri is the supporting actress. We all know that but even on wikipedia here, she is credited before Ash, the lead actress. Plus, she is credited before her even in the movie. By the way, I just saw Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega again and in the end, Rani is credited before Preity but I have made no changes because it will upset you. But here, I must be firm. Rani is even credited before Zinta in the poster. shez_15 13:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares?

Who cares what you and I think. The point is that the film maker's decision how to credit the actors is not biased and very much important than what we think. I wouldn't mind Rani's name not to be mentionned before a supporting actress even though she might be the main actress. Films articles on wikipedia should give respect to the film itself. Whatever the circumstance, the best way to solve this is to leave it as the film intends it to be written. By the way, the poster and the movie plus the official website credits Mukerji before Zinta. Anyway, I don't get the point. Why won't you put the new poster there. It's not copyrighted plus it shows the main characters. Like on Devdas page, Madhuri, Khan and Rai are all on the poster, so why be unjust here? Again, I should point out that Dixit is credited before Rai! Why? When you do know that she is the supporting cast. Why? Are you being unfair to Mukerji because you like Zinta more? Why is there an edit war over such a small issue. I am not favoring anyone. If I may say, I saw the movie Kya Kehna again today, and at the end, the credits came as Saif Ali Khan then Chandrachur and then Zinta. And here on wikipedia, Zinta is credited before them! Why? You like her more? I think you guys are doing favoritism when you should act professional. I'm not a professional. So I may make follies but in this case, I rest my case as it is. shez 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In wiki there is to be consensus, and this issue has been discussed before , do not see any change to the consensus agreed upon earlier- which is Zinta before Rani. Haphar 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fatima Zahra

Hi Zora. Do you regard the Shi'a view to have undue weight, and in that case, do you support moving it to Shi'a view of Fatima? Peace. --Striver 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I need help

Articles Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam and Women in Islam are completely in trouble. I am facing some people, who doesn't know that "quoted" text should not be changed. Secondly, headings like "domestic voilence in islam" is a clear POV when "behaviour with rebellious wives" works perfectly. I hope that you will have mercy this time. TruthSpreader 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Wife beating" or punishing is not an appropriate heading because the whole process includes discussion, separation of bed and then beating, so it is quite possible that you won't reach this point anyway. You mightnot agree with punishment of rebellious wives, but this is how Islam takes it, so it is not POV for Islam (behaviour with rebellious wives in Islam) and the word cannot be dis-obedience because Qur'an only asks husband to take steps only in the case of rebellious behaviour, which is the highest degree of dis-obedience. Secondly, as in the article, one of the Shafi'i jurist says it is "non-voilent" because it is not severe, and then according to another scholar on the same article, it is a punishment which a father gives to his son or a teacher gives to his student. So these people don't even consider it a voilence. Voilence is the by-product of mis-use of these directive by husbands, which has already been dealt at the end of the article. So if Islamic scholars don't agree that it is voilence, and western society call this as voilence, I think "behaviour with rebellious wives" is the most NPOV heading against "voilence against wives". Also I have a feeling as "voilence" is a word which is loaded with language, even its synonym is not used in any Qur'anic or hadithic or scholary reference for treatment with wives. TruthSpreader 03:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Zora :)

I noticed your remarks on the Koan talk page. If you're still active in this area, you might want to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Zen Collaboration of the Month. We'd love to have you on board if you have the time :) . Rentwa 11:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sanjeev Kumar

Hi, Just a few doubts/suggestions. Sanjeev kumar was not living in Mumbai slums, was he? Chawls may be. He also did a lot of gujarati theatre and movies before he entered Bollywood. At that time gujrati people had a lot of control over bollywood. Just asking for a second opinion. regards Kaushal mehta

Spammer

Sure. I got to try out my new cool "Revert All Contributions" button :) alphaChimp 19:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Historiography of early Islam

Zora, we have discussed this before , but I have inserted sourced quotes to back up my edits, so why do you just blankly revert? Should we call this article Zora's and Gren's Historiography of early Islam page?--CltFn 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Credits

Longtime. Hey Zora. Pa_7 and I had long arguments and we kept reverting each other's work to a point where we both got fed up and decided that the articles on films will have cast and crew credited as in the film to avoid further conflict. At the end of the day, wikipedia is representing the movie. Therefore, it should represent it fairly as the film maker wants to be told. And in Veer-Zaara, Rani was credited before Zinta. In KANK, Abhishek, being a supporting actor was credited b4 Rani. So, he is credited before her on wiki. There have been many corrections on ten or more pages. Now please don't make us argue again. Thanks. Keep in touch.

shez_15

Hagarism

As you have been involved in editing this article, I think it's important for you to comment on recent developments on the talk page of the article. Thank you. BhaiSaab 16:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

In response to hate attacks like and . I give up. I'm never talking to you again. It looks like your edits and comments have only been used to malign me. I guess talking to name-callers is a lost cause.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD

Dear Zora:

I liked your comments. Several categories are going to come up for deletion very soon. Please keep your eyes open. Your input will be appreciated. Bellbird 14:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Magazine Covers

Magazine covers can only be used in articles about the magazine itself, or in an article that mentions an incident which was covered by the magazine. The Rani cover didn't qualify. What I do for pictures, is that I crop wallpapers and album covers, and justify it on the grounds that it is publicity material and low-res. Here are a couple of examples - and . On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that if you can edit out the magazine name from the picture, it would be acceptable, but I'm not really the expert.Gamesmaster G-9 23:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hindu mathematicians

I know our opinions clash but please try and refrain from making this debate overly heated (like it is) and please don't divert the topic (the discussion on India vs South Asia, dhoti-wearing etc.). In addition to that, the insults on Baka are uncalled for (calling him "Hindu fundamentalist" etc). I just want to get this clear, are you saying that culture has not influence on mathematics? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Martian

You are a Martian. Ok, now, I dare you to add that one to the list found on your userpage. lol. I'm kidding of course, but it would be funny addition. --JuanMuslim 09:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

LoL. --JuanMuslim 16:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Old chador engraving.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Old chador engraving.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Uploading public domain images

You have to scroll down the menu a little further. Listed below "Public domain" are about seven different reasons why the image is PD (in black, not grey). Choose one that applies. Andrew Levine 15:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali's Wives

Zora, honestly this is news for me. I am not sure about other wives of Ali. If we can add a source at that edit then probably this will help people like me. --Marwatt

Good morning

Good morning Zora, I know you very well and you are really different: you are a real and true wikipedian, and I hold you in great regard and esteem. Yes, I do agree that at times I too find that dealing with persons are really difficult, in real life as well as in a virtual life. However, passing a general sweeping and general remarks by an administrator about a country of one billion people is unbecoming of a real wikipedian. I am taking your suggestion and comments in the right spirit: the matter stands closed as far as I am concerned. However, please come on Zora: we require administrators like you. --Bhadani 03:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Maimonides, ‘’Epistle to the Jews of Yemen”, translated in Stillman (1979), pp. 241–242
2. Mark R. Cohen (1995) p. xvii-xviii