User talk:Zora/2006archive5

Rani Mukerji's page

Try to understand and comprise with me. I am improvising the page putting three categories in her career making it more articulate. I know it's your job to edit so please read my stuff and cut things which you don't like. I'm just here for comments. But don't revert all my work. I worked hard the whole day. i added references. It's so much professional now. if you could just correct my english and make it more coherent. Thanks! i enjoy your comments. but the whole purpose is to make the article more professional. i'm trying to do fancraft but if you think so then cut back on the bragging lines. You are nice!

Rani

Hi! Zora! Look these wikipedia people told me to make Rani's page more like Lindsay Lohan's page. I am trying to make the page more longer and professional. I know there are less references because media in India works differently than in the USA. I know things from television and movies than stuff i can find on the internet. I am not spreading rumors. Just trying to make the page more articulate and with more substance. An actress who has been working for 10 years and is the no.1 today definitely needs a longer page to promote her work. Let me do my job! Thank you! You can help by making my language more articulate but do no edit or revert my work completely. You rock! Let's work this thing out!

Shi'a, Shiah and transliteration

Sorry for that abrupt change without consulting anyone. I realised i made a mistake when i saw the masses of back-links, but didn't have the time to do anything about it. I am glad that the erroneous Shiite is now replaced by Shi'a but i would still prefer Shiah. Anyway I guess this is an issue that will take some time to arrive at consensus on and views still keep changing. Paki.tv 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui

Well this guy User:Siddiqui has been taking down India-related articles and impregnating them with a distinct POV by dozen a day! He has been unilaterally editing wahtever he percieves to be "misinformation" and has started psedo-historical articles like Sakastan and completed hogwash like Kashmiri Freedom Movement (even though Pakistani POV is articulated on terrorism in Kashmir article). See this for some of his subtle vandalisms. I've tried to be as polite as possible but this guy simply deleting all criticisms from Talk page! history of his talk page. Do tell advise me on how to tavkle this, some articles are trhreating to decscend into Rajput-article mode all over again.

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 07:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've have limited dealings with Siddiqui, but found him to be a particularly capable editor. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice

I would like your advice. On the Talk page for Arabs of Khuzestan, user Dariush4444 has called me a liar and propagandist.[[1]] He has called the Arab population "refugees", which is not true, and he claims that I know nothing about the Middle East. He also denies that the Arab population has any ethnicity or culture distinct from the Persian culture. I want to know whether any of these comments breach Wikipedia rules and what I do about it if they do. However, as I have been reprimanded once by Wikipedia administrators, I do not think they will take anything I say seriously any more.--Ahwaz 18:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please...

Hi Zora! Could you please see this and help enhance the section? Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 19:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora! Yes I saw the two long lists of books and films at the end of the article.Even then I thought to add this section because I had plans to incorporate not only books and cinemas, but also other cultural aspects like cuisine, language, performing arts etc.However, your suggestion of moving out the long lists and start a break out article is really good.Just 2 or 3 sentences in Partition of India, and a separate article on Cultural impact of the partition of India would give a scope to discuss the effects widely , and without much concern to the size of Partition of India, which is already pretty large.Thanks for the suggestion. And please help me when the break out article is started.I will inform you soon when I/ anybody else starts the break-out article.Thanks a lot ! Bye, --Dwaipayanc 06:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! As per your advice, I have started the discussion in the talk page of Partition of India. Hope wikipedians will help to start and enhance the article.Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayanc 08:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Artistic depictions of the partition of India does not look good at present, as both format of lisings are there. If you want to retain the list format, you can, but please take care that the short descriptions of all the entries are also retained. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Upset user

User:Zmmz has apparently been so disturbed by some of your edits that he has requested I "remind people to be civil to each other". I feel a bit reluctant to step in with such an obvious, yet potentially condescending request in what most likely is a heated debate where more than one part is pushing the civility border. But since he is upset by your comments I don't feel I can neglect his request. And after all, we can all do with a reminder to be nicer to each other. I'll tell Zmmz the same, and hope I'm not dragged into a who-said-what debate here. Thanks! Shanes 04:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui RfC

I've filed an RfC against Siddiqui. Please support it by endorsing the RfC at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Siddiqui

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 08:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish politician category

Hey thanks for you keeping an eye on the Persian people article. I also thought you might be interested in this. Seems like another attempt to limit the expansion of Kurdish-related articles. Aucaman^Talk 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mullah

Checked it. The latter spelling is correct. (the older one wasnt).--Zereshk 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: accusations

Yes I will see what I can do about this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

I know you're trying to help, but try not to have any discussions with User:Zmmz about things not related to articles' contents - especially on my talk page. If you want to leave me a message you can just press the "Leave a message" link I just added to the page. Sincerely, Aucaman^Talk 05:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Hawaiian language

I don't know if the issue has been resolved yet, but the language wasn't altogether "banned." The Hawaiian language was effectively suppressed by way of funding. In effect, the language was banned due to federal funding mandating english as its primary language. The schools that taught primary in Hawaiian started teaching in english so as to keep its funding.

I haven't looked at the page, but if you still need someone to try and add "balance," I'll start some research.--M.ana 07:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whee

Flame wars? On Wikipedia? Never. Okay, I'll get right on 'em, have them all cleaned up by tomorrow.

Incidentally, it's pajama pants and a t-shirt at the moment, thank you very much. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, all the new users at Rajput are fishy, to say the least. I'm going to see what a checkuser will reveal. Dmcdevit·t 23:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ziyarat and Ziarah

Hi Zora. Would you agree that the articles Ziyarat and Ziarah be merged. The latter contains a much too restrictive definition (as 'grave visiting'). MP (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Siddiqui

Zora i think you misunderstand us. We are NOT trying to supress legitimate Muslim POV. But with regards to sensitive issues, factual information must take precedence over someone's POV. Its upto Muslims to accept the darker sides of their "heroes" and move on. If Shivraj Singh can be banned for revert wars on a single article, why not Siddiqui who has had revert wars on two dozen articles to his credit(judging by the current trend all over the world does this have to do with their religion?) . This guy is nice sometimes at others he acts plain queer. See this here he calls Ahamadis (an Islamic sect ) "kuttay" in article!!! Even you might know it means "dogs". He cant really expect sympathy from us if he keeps on deleting our edits without rhyme and reason and keeps humanising organisations whose sole purpose is destruction of Dharmic religions from Indian subcontinent. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 11:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh i should have thought of it before!! My only introduction to Asperger's has been the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. Well some of his edits especially the ones to the Third Battle of Panipat struck a personal chord with me as 3 of my female ancestors were killed/lost/enslaved after the battle. As for Muslim bashing, all many of us Indians may be guilty of mild-Muslim bashing here but again we are all billed as Hindutva cruft by our eager-to-brandish-liberal-credentials-brigade but god forbid if you accuse a Muslim of fundamentalism. It is these double standards at Wikipedia that pisses me off. The problem with non-South Asian origin admins is that they tend to see a Hindutva-vadi in every every reactionist Hindu while we percieve that Muslims get away with much of history revisionist crap of wikipedia. Surely they didnt take India-Pakistan chauvanism and the emitions it evokes into account while making Wikipedia. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora you have opened whole new can worms over the conversion issue there. People like Ghazni were may have been motivated by loot but what about Babur? In case you do not know, this motivation-because-of-loot theory is a contentious issue, i personally believe it is a part of history revisionism by certain political schools of thought. These people were specifically targeting the "idolators", following certain Surahs from Koran(9:27). If most people did convert to Islam to escape the caste system, then why are they not doing so today? Caste system is a unique feature of Indian society not only Hinduism. Yes some may have converted out of conviction BUT it is generally percieved that most converts were either forced or compelled by the socio-economic conditions. I'm quite open-minded about problems with Hinduism, i dont believe in Vedas nor Manu nor the trimurti still I call myself a Hindu. I'd suggest you read Elst or K.S Lal or even Sita Ram Goel (fountainhead of the nasty dangerous "communal" thought in India) for change may be they will give you a non-conventional perspective of Indian history. Though most of these historians are billed as right-wing, in India every one has an agenda (even good ole Romila Thapar). Lastly AFAIK RSS does not fight out of religious convictions, Jehadis do. And i do accept I do have a certain POV but i try to be as sympathetic to others POV as I can.

P.S try reading Pakistani history articles, they hardly mention country's historic conections with Hinduism, sadly no one seems to care.

P.P.S Kabir's origins are not certain. He was neither a Muslim nor a Hindu. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

---

"When you get angry at Muslims, think of that song. (Goes for me too -- after all, I'm a kill-on-sight American to some jihadis.)"

Sorry for eavesdropping. Just wanted to add that the lyrics were written by Javed Akhtar. deeptrivia (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Corsets mythology

Can you write Corsets mythology or Mythology of corset?

• The legend of Catherine de'Medici
• 9-10-inche waist.
• more:......

missehund vovkat 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hajj

Thanks for catching that addition to Hajj. To answer your question (see, people do read edit summaries!) the edit was done here by NurulAhmed. Looks like we both reverted vandalism afterwards but missed it. :) [Note to self: read the whole article when reverting.] Turnstep 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman/Zmmz arbitration

Zora, Zmmz has gone ahead and had an arbitration request filed against Aucaman. What are your views, could you e-mail me? Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Har Roozetan Norouz, Norouzetan Pirooz هر روزتا ن نوروز , نوروزتان پيروز ! Amir85 13:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ziyaret

Welcome! It's an interesting article. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I will create a list of Ziyaret sites in Pakistan.

Siddiqui 13:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora, My understanding is that a Dargah is the burial-place of a muslim devine, which becomes a place of prayer and pilgrimage. However, I find that "Dargah" redirects to Khanqah, and that page makes no mention of burial at all. Maybe others have favoured this redirection as the Mausoleum page has a lot of christian context, but is that not more appropriate? Please advise. Regards, ImpuMozhi 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

AFIK, a grave is necessary for a shrine to be called a Dargah, something not apparently a necessary feature of Khanqahs. This is the understanding in India, and of course every prosperous dargah will have buildings and religio-cultural activities around the place. Such for instance is the Haji Ali Dargah in Bombay. I know of other, very much smaller places that are called "Dargahs" and comprise only of a shrine housing a grave. People pray there, but AFIK, not in congregation. Hence my idea of association between "grave" and "dargah". I am definitely no authority on this and came to you for guidance! Regards, ImpuMozhi 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Happy Newroz! Diyako Talk + 18:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mosque.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mosque.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It means you want to release it in GFDL. If yes, then tag it with {{GFDL-self}}. If no, then choose a suitable tag from here. Thanks for the response. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood and plagiarism

I have filled in the information for Main Aisa Hi Hoon thanks to a review from Planet Bollywood which was pretty clear about the fact that it was a copy. But I disagree with the move to make this page in the first place, it will be hard to control the rise of unsourced claims and serious unjustified degrading of Bollywood itself and the movies that is produces. It could become just an unsourced POV mess that is unfit for Wikipedia, as the topic itself is controversial. Then again, it could become a decent source of information on plagiarism claims, although this wouldn't be very likely in my opinion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aisha and the previous engagement

Zora, I read your post on my talk. You say:

Ahmedayad, I reverted your edits to Aisha. I really feel that it's important to know WHY people continue to believe those hadith from Bukhari even though they seem to cast doubts on the character of Muhammad. The prior engagement is mentioned twice already; it doesn't need to be mentioned again.

There are two points:

1- I posted the reasons for the modification on the talk page of the article. The reason for removing these paragraphs was that they are unsupported by citation. They sound very much like "original research". I said feel free to put them back if you have some support for the argument. If you would like references, I can give you plenty in Islamic Fiqh where companions of the prophet openly disagreed with Aisha. A scholar - not a modern one - cited more than a 100 places where Aisha had the incorrect opinion (in his view). These opinions were regarding other far serious issues than her young age (see point 2 below). Simply being mistaken about her age in these narration is hardly a cause to cast doubt on the structure of Shari'a. Unless you can cite an opinion - even if a fringe one - who espouses such view (muslim views of course, since non-muslims doubt the whole structure on priciple), I think the paragraphs are unprecise to say the least.

2- The reason you say "they seem to cast doubts on the character of Muhammad" is exactly why I wanted to include the previous engagement in this context (I reduced the size to only a sentence referring to the previous paragraph in the introduction, despite my belief that moving the whole story to this section is the correct approach. I thought it won't be productive to start a revert war). As far as my knowledge, the issue was not a controversy until marriages with huge age differences and between people who we percieve as children became a modern faux pas (Ghandi was married at the age of 13 to a 13 years old). I can be wrong, but if so, I would like to know why I am other than being wrong by assertion. Before I added my modifications I did some quick research. When people ask prominent contemporary scholars about the perceived controversy in the marriage, I counted two replies both referring to the previous engagement as evidence that there was nothing out of the ordinary with the whole affair. There is little discussion in the replies about her age, since the view is that it was immaterial, and there is no question that Aisha at the time of marriage was past puberty. Bottom line, it is very relevant in this context.

Wiki pages are supposed to be factual and relevant, in the most succinct manner. I believe my edits stick to these principles.

Finally, out of respect for your past edits to the page, I will not revert until we can reach some sort of agreement. I would hope you reply to me soon though (this is the second time I was reverted on the same subject within less than half a day of my edits).

Thanks

Hey there, thanks! Glad to help. — Deckiller 02:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

reverting the page on Islam

Zora, please tell us why you are reverting the page on Islam to your favourite version? For Example, it is one of the tenets of that Muhammad was the last prophet. Why then the insistence on calling the submitters as Muslim? Their religion can be said to based on Islam, but not Islam itself. peacedove 17:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page, Zora.

POV, Piety in Depiction of Muhammad

Zora, about the above topic where you are talking to joturner.

I may be mistaken, and I hope i am, but the words and the tone display a bias when you say this:

"You said that most Muslims agreed that depiction was wrong -- that is clearly not the case. Not only do Shi'a allow it, most moderate Muslims do too. Howling mobs whipped up by Islamists are not evidence for majority opinion."

My questions are these: 1. How do you define moderate Muslims? 2. How would you determine the percentage of "moderate" Muslims? 3. How did you come to the conclusion that "most" moderate Muslims allow pictorial depiction of the prophet?

You have said yourself that most Muslims are Sunnis, and Sunnis do not allow this.

I wonder if you have had enough interaction with real Muslims to make such a generalised statement. Have you read the newspapers and opinion surveys in major Muslim countries? Iam a Muslim, and have lived among Muslims for most of my years, and from what I see the pictorial representation is not allowed. For non-Muslim countries some Muslims may make an exception as the ban cannot be applied to them. peacedove 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair

Your usually fair in your opinions. Could I ask you to look over at the September 11 attacks page, the recent edits between me and MONGO, and the talk page, and let me know, either on my talk page or on the article talk page, on how you view the situation? Pepsidrinka 07:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have hoped from you that you wouldn't take a stand. I would consider this edit to the discussion page at the September 11 attacks article to be a borderline personal attack. It has nothing to do with the article in question and should properly have been placed on my talk page. I'm hoping that you don't repeat this kind of thing again.--MONGO 09:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabization of Iran

Yeah the move by User:ManiF was not okay. But Arabization and Islamicization are two different concepts, so maybe now that we have an article on Ismicization of Iran you should create and article titled Arabization of Iran? You do have sources, right? Maybe it's just better for the two articles to be seperate? But if you think the move was a major violation you can set up an RfC on this or ask some admins about it. Aucaman^Talk/e 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabization of Iran, or any such titles, would imply that Iran was Arabized which is totally inaccurate and POV, and I have countless sources to back up my facts. --ManiF 13:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar, OTR & PUA Review

FYI. You may want to look and comment here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. For your reference, the guidelines are referenced here: Barnstar Proposal Guidelines. Thanks -- evrik 18:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman (convert)

I was reading this article today when I noticed the sentence, "who in March 2006 was arrested and charged in Afghanistan with converting from Islam to Christianity, which is punishable by death penalty under Sharia, the law of Islam." I was going to change it but I wasn't sure how to modify it and not seem apologist (because many forms obviously do call for death penalty) but also give a clearer view... such as many schools say under the caliph it's apostasy because it's treason, etc. I don't want to be long winded nor do I want to be overly simplistic. What's the best way to deal with that, do you think? gren グレン 23:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I just saw your vote here. I voted support before I saw your vote. Do you have any specific complaints about this user? Aucaman^Talk 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I checked some of his edits randomly and they looked pretty careful and NPOV. He also seems to have a good number of Talk namespace contributions, which is a good sign.

Also, have you seen any of the latest discussions on Iranian peoples? I sometimes feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. There are a lot of inaccurate statements in that article.

And then.... You might want to archive this page? Aucaman^Talk 15:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Rajput

Zora, I disagree with you. Every Hindu knows that Rajput is synonmous with Hindu.

Raj2004 14:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC) In the Muslim Rajputs article, the article seems to mention that the Rajputs converted to Islam by Sufi missionaries. May be true but give me a break. Some were forced to convert or due to persecution. Where is that point of view?

Raj2004 02:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

William Gifford Palgrave

Dear fellow abeoholic; I have finally finished reading Palgrave´s: "Personal Narrative..." A very interesting book, IMO. Have you finished reading your copy? I have two questions. Firstly, I had thought of adding some of the informations in that book to his article. However, when I revisit his article I find this: [2] Hmmm. I certainly found nothing in the book that suggested that Palgrave had "the goal to convert the Wahhabi Muslims to Christianity"!! The whole passage is uncourced. Do you know anything about it? Also, secondly, my edition (1908) of the book has a map showing his route. Very useful! I was thinking of scanning this map and place it in the article, but I still have not gotten a scanner... I know you have a scanner ;-D ...do you have the map? (if yes: hint, hint ;-) ). Regards, Huldra 21:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I always claim: women are parallel computers, men are simply doing sequential computing ....(it can cause some problems, though, when you only have one Output Unit (a.k.a. "mouth"): I know I can be difficult to follow sometimes, when sentences pertaining to completely different processes comes out intertwined (PS: remember to buy milk, bread) and the listener must sort the sentences (NB: extend Palgrave (library), order Finkelstein) according to content. If you see what I mean.

Hey, what did you think of the anon´s edits on Palgrave?? I´m temptet to remove most of it... & I´m looking forward to you adding the map! I really enjoyed reading Palgrave, certainly a change to present day Saudi-Arabias one-dimentional image......ah, bad luck that the Wahabis came out on top of those internal strifes.... How was al-Rasheeds book about Saudi-Arabia, b.t.w.? Just think about it: if the Ottoman empire hadn´t collapsed (+been so unpopular) we migh have had a "Rasheedi-Arabia"!

Btw, I´m trying to find out more about PalestineFacts. The GuideStar can apparently be used to find those who fund it ((and those who funds www.middleeastfacts.com) ...but apparently you need a "GuideStar Premium" membership. Do you happen to know anything about it? These guys ( PalestineFacts etc.) really don´t sail under their own flag. I find the Middle East Media Research Institute-article quite illuminating. Cheers, Huldra

PS: talking about zealots, what about this: [3]? what are they thinking about??

I suspected it was something like that. Nuts! Totally. (Try searching for that "correct name" in abebooks!) Regards, Huldra 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work!! Great! The map is fine, IMO. I might try to add some inf. from his book later; I relly enjoy his first-hand observations of people and places. Regards, Huldra 17:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabization and Islamicization in post-conquest Iran

Hey, how are you?

If you want this page back you should probably stop arguing with these users and just file an RfC. What ManiF has done is certainly against the rules here. An alternative is to create a new article: Arabization in post-conquest Iran or Arabization in Iran. And I'm not sure why you said "I moved the page back" when it's clearly sitting there.

Let me know if you need any help. Aucaman^Talk 06:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review Kolkata

Hi! A request has been made for peer review of Kolkata. Could you please help improving the article? Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayanc 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

<aside>Seems like it was very recently that you archived your talk page. Your now at 100+KB.</aside> Thanks for the support on the RfA. As you already know, it was a success. It's cliche by now, but I'll do it anyhow: If you ever need any assistance, feel free to let me know. There are many, many, many vandals that surround the Islam-related articles, so I'm sure you come into a regular contact with them, probably daily. Anyhow, thanks again. Pepsidrinka 18:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam article

Someone has asked to remove the "disputed tag" from the article. Could you please post your opinion there. Thanks, --Aminz 20:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Xebat

Hi, I'm really supesius to these users. They use the same untrue logic. I want to ask for checking Xebat Talk + 05:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism of my userpage by the above user, which somehow escaped my notice! SouthernComfort 05:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship on Wikipedia

I can see from this requests for arbitration that the administrators are voting unanimously to ban user:Aucaman from Wikipedia because he contends that "Aryan" is a racist term. I am not particularly interested in that debate, but it seems that the extremists have stiched up a hate campaign on their bulletin board against a whole lot of people. user:Aucaman is their first target. You, me and some others are also targetted for an attack that is obviously led by those who have an extreme hatred of Arabs, Kurds and anyone else who does not share their racial profile. Can you tell me what I can expect from this nasty crowd? When user:Aucaman is banned, who is the next person on their list? Is this the usual way an "encyclopaedia" is compiled? I have no faith in Wikipedia because of what is happening to user:Aucaman and the campaign to run people out or run them down. I don't feel able to contribute any more because of the intimidation by those people. I had wanted to help expand the anti-Arabism article, but feel it will too become a target and I will again face racial abuse and accusations of supporting terrorism as I did before. I hate Wikipedia and I wish people would wake up and realise the kind of views of those running it.--Ahwaz 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Thanks for your message. I've blocked RedCrescent 24 hours and yourself 6 hours for violating 3RR at that said article. That said, I'm not inclined to be drawn into a revert war. I shall get a well-known Muslim editor (currently up for adminship nominated by me but failing as no consensus) to talk to RC, and to look through the revert war. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:32 UTC (2006-03-28)

Addendum, User:Sjakkalle lowered RC's block to six hours. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:55 UTC (2006-03-28)

And by the way, it is possile to edit your own user talk page while blocked ;) NSLE _(T+C) at 10:03 UTC (2006-03-28)

I hate to have to say this, but RedCrescent was possibly a total newbie AND he was changing his edits at Zakir Naik each time. The gist was the same, but the wording was different. Does that merit a block? Should we not bite the newbies even if they're acting like idjits?

I say "possibly" because I dunno if a complete newbie would know enough to track me to the article on Zakir Naik (a completely obscure article) and seemingly deliberately set out to piss me off. But it could be that I'm just getting paranoid and cranky :/ Time to go read a scholarly book and chill out. Zora 10:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Nakir

Hi Zora,

I know this may appear to be rude since it is none of my business, but when surfing I observed your debate with RedCrescent. To be honest, the Qur'an's main interest is not medicine. Though there is one verse saying that there is healing in honey and there are some other verses on wine for example that may be interpreted in a medical sense. There are also some verses on embryology which seems to be not relevant here. Many Muslims of course think that when God forbids something, it either should have some (medical or social or …) reasons or it should be a test as to see who will follow it (such as direction of praying, or maybe eating the food on which the name of God has been said at the slaughter). I think there should however be some Hadiths related to medicine. Muhammad is reported to have been interested in medicine first of all.

Based on my understanding of Qur'an, that statement that those who eat pork will become like pig in the biological sense has not qur’anic basis. Qur'an sometimes does use such sort of expressions but in a totally different context. It tries to show that the nature of some actions that we do is like those things: For example,

"Those who unjustly eat up the property of orphans, eat up a Fire into their own bodies: They will soon be enduring a Blazing Fire!" (Qur'an 4:10)

" O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear Allah. For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. " (49:12)

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." (2:65)

I don't see any medical link here. The nature of sin is embodied like blazing fire, eating the dead body of brother and being apes. Anyway, that’s what I think. It may be wrong. Have nice times, --Aminz 10:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I think it's enough to say that most Muslims don't share Naik's -- to me -- strange views. He is coming up with theories intended to show that the Qur'an is rational and scientific. Those are theories just like the theories of Muslim theologians or commentators. I think most Muslims would agree that all of those things are not in the Qur'an or the Sunnah. But does that mean that they're wrong, or should be thrown out? Only if you're a Salafi. That's why all we can really say is that his ideas aren't shared. I put that observation there because some anti-Muslim editors were trying to make it seem as if all Muslims were silly because Naik said some -- to us -- silly things. It's only fair to most Muslims to say that they don't share Naik's views. Zora 11:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Mutual aid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hurriyya_notice_board

I have set up a notice board to give collective support to those facing racism, nationalist bigotry and group intimidation while editing articles related to Middle Eastern issues. There are a growing number of people who are coming across the same problems with the same users, but are outnumbered and over-ruled. It is plain and simple bullying. They are being turned off Wikipedia because of this behaviour. I hope that we can all support each other.

The title is "Hurriyya", which means "freedom".--Ahwaz 17:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hurriyya_notice_board

Hadeeth

Ok, I'm going to leave the hadeeth in there since I still believe that Sunnis view Fatima in a good light; not only Shias. I won't replace the hadeeth with another because by placing it in there, in the first place, wasn't to provide a POV (even thought it's under the Sunni View section) but only what evidence from a authenticated Sunni hadeeth presents...I am worried though that you brought this up twice, meaning that other readers might also think the same thing, but Sunnis and Shias are not divided upon the issue of her father's lover for her, which the hadeeth simply states.

And sorry about your crankiness, a few edits should cure that up right quick.:) -Stoa 06:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for checking out IPTA

Hi Zora! How are you? Could you please check out Indian People’s Theatre Association? I had trouble creating the article and also categorizing it. There is IPTA Mumbai seperately now, distinct from, but related to this IPTA. May be you know about more films/ dramas churned out by the this movement. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Du'a

I have stopped writing the artcile and I am gonna am gonna let other people add to it if they like. In my opinion it is an important topic within Islam. Maybe not outside of Islam, but there have been thousands of books written on the topic of du'a. Maybe from a non-muslim perspective many people are not interested in the topic. Anyway, tell me what you think off the article I wrote titled Islamic Rulings. Levae your opinion on whether if it is to POV or not on my talk page. MuslimsofUmreka 03:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also zora, I read that you havent read about dua in Islam yet because nobody has talked about it in any other artcile. I dont know why they havent. Its a big important part of Islam. THe first surah of the Quran is a du'a, surah fathiha or the opening as it would be translated into english. In Isalm the because component is that you ask nobody for help except Allah. I am gonna talk to those people you mentioned to see why they havent mentioned it. MuslimsofUmreka 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Husayn vs. Hussain

Apparently User:Salman01 moved Husayn ibn Ali, Ali Asgar ibn Husayn, and Sakinah to Hussain ibn Ali, Ali Asghar ibn Hussain, and Sakina binte Imam Hussain respectively. While the latter seems like a complete copyvio, I was wondering your thoughts on the spelling of Husayn. Since you seem to be exposed to how they do it in academic sources and such, I was wondering your opinion. Pepsidrinka 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ayatollah Khomeini

Could you watchlist this article? I've added some new stuff about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but people try to change the sectioning or claim the information is not true. Aucaman^Talk 03:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Masjid Al-Aqsa image on the Muhammed page

Hi Zora, Muslims only identified Dome of the Rock as "the furthest mosque" much later, the original Al-Aqsa mosque remained the same, shall we change the caption and include the picutre, because I think its important and adds value to the article. Mystic 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 11:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How do I respond to this ? i mean is there a place where i can reply to the message sent ? And the coverage i have done Geeta Bali, Shammi Kapoor, Amitabh, Dharmendra, Nasir Hussain is MOSTLY FACT, there is hardly any rumor part apart from a part of what I have added about Amithabh and Mithun And none of the stuff like place of birth , marriage is gossip or rumor.

Also on the comment to work on older bollywood, none of these people are current though Amitabh still has a current status, I do understand that you need verification but on a lot of pages i saw nothing that showed the verification, if i say that Filmfare said so does it become verified ? Would you not need the date and article details ? I do not see that kind of stuff anywhere so how do i do the verification ?

Haphar 11:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 12:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Look first thanks for taking the time out for speaking to a moron ( ie can't write can't spell) but sticking to the topic- in Raj Kapoor's biography Nargis is given as "his real life love interest". But a comment on Amitabh having an interest ( the well written grammatically correct and good english part can be covered seperately )on his article becomes gossip ? so is this not double standards ?

Please understand that i am on wiki since yesterday and am learning on the fly, but i cannot see how verification can be done for some and not for others ? Or is the thumb rule do not talk about the living if the fact is not pleasant ?

The movies is a huge list, and my attempt is to first get some movie stubs in there and then work on them. So if I cannot comment on RD Burman's music being influenced by Santana (even if his ex wife has aknowledged it in print and on tv) then it takes a lot of the flavour out of the knowledge. maybe the solution is to have an opinion/unverified portion on personalities.

Now Coming to the language part, i guess that's why they have editors like you out there to tweak the stuff into shape. :-)

Haphar 12:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced Gossip ?

Also Amitabh's mother Teji being a Sikh is not unreferenced gossip, so even that got edited out. Why ? Haphar 12:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A considerable effort also went into adding links to movies in Dahrmendra's page, so if you did not like my english why did even the links ( for close to 200 movies is VERY tedious work) have to go ? There was no english involved there ? Also his being married to Prakash ( the first wife) is also not rumor or unreferenced, that too went. So there is no selective editing , everything has to go if you do not like one part of it ?

Haphar 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Haphar 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What of complete lifting of articles and posting them on wiki ? For Amitabh's article is a straight lift. here are the links -

http://www.danceage.com/biography/sdmc_Amitabh_Bachchan http://www.articles-hub.com/Article/48067.html Also this is the ONLY article that says Amitabh was a FTII graduate, he was not, his wife was. This article wherever it is repeated is the only one making this claim, so that is a lot of bad stuff flating on wiki, and i had deleted it but it's back. Also here are the links supporting Teji being a Sikh. http://ganeshyamalabittu.tripod.com/heroes/id25.html http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=46087 http://india4u.com/Bollywoodnew/bachan_continue.asp

So should verification not be done before deleting stuff too ?

Haphar 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, with the utmost respect, I do think User Haphar deserves an explanation, or a restoration of his edits. It does seem odd to delete, revert or rewrite whole pages if you do not like one bit in someone's edit. I wonder, too why the other users are so meek as not to revert Zora's edits back to their own versions. peacedove 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)