Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cathryn (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 17 June 2006 (Diamond Head, Hawaii). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)