User talk:Zora/2006archive9

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 [1] 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 ^(T.|@) 08:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

help?

Can you comment here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. [2] 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? [3]-- 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen you producing reliable sources saying that there is a dispute. Pecher ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 [WP:V]] 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 ['bɛnə] _(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 ['bɛnə] _(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 ['bɛnə] _(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 ^talk 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

E-Mail

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

Sent a reply. BhaiSaab ^talk 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 ^Talk 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 [4] and following [5] 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^Talk 17:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Zora should have never been blocked in the first place. BhaiSaab ^talk 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 ^Talk 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. Wikipedia'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 ^(T.|@) 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)

Wikipedia: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 ^babelfish 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

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

Diamond Head, Hawaii

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

Category marked for deletion

You may be interested.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16#Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad

BhaiSaab ^talk 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

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

I would recommend you to read the articles of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, who himself has been student of two great Islamic scholars of twentieth century, Amin Ahsan Islahi[6] who wrote Tadabbur-ul-Qur'an, an accredited Tafsir and Abu ala Maududi, who wrote another Tafsir, Tafhim-ul-Qur'an. Articles written by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Amin Ahsan Islahi explain very clearly the reasons of prosecutions by early Muslims. Unfortunately, most of their books are in Urdu, but some of their articles have been translated in English, which can be accessed through links given on Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and [7]. I read some parts of Tadabbur-ul-Qur'an myself and wrote a small paragraph, which I included in Banu Nadir (now removed because the article is under dispute). Just to give you an idea, the paragraph is written below:

Muslims explanation for prosecution

Muslims hold that Constitution of Medina was first broken by Jews. At first instance, by not helping them against invaders and at the second instance, by helping invaders against Muslims. Muslims believe that the responsibility of spreading the religion was now unto Ishmaelites, rather than Israelites. According to Quran, ...(God) said, "I am appointing you (Abraham) a leader for the people". He replied, "and also my descendants"? God said, "My covenant does not include the transgressors" (2:124), You shall strive for the cause of God as you should strive for His cause. He has chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion - the religion of your father Abraham (22:78), and We thus made you an impartial community, that you may serve as witnesses among the people, and the Messenger serves as a witness among you (2:143). The prosection that followed was of special nature. Similar prosections can be found in Bible, when Moses asked his followers to kill all those who worshiped Golden Calf, kill your brother, friend, and neighbor (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 27) or with the principle by which Solomon expanded his empire. Destruction of nations, when they challenge the God (by disobeying the Messenger), either with natural disaster or with prosecution by believers can also be found in many examples from Quran and Bible, like Nation of Noah, Nation of Lot, and finally Jewish miseries after denial of Jesus. Quran also states, ... that whoever took a life, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind (5:32), and And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever... (4:93). Hence prosection of Jews and others was a special case and is no more considered applicable[Amin Ahsan Islahi, Tadabbur-i-Quran (Tafsir on Quran), 2nd ed., (Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1986), [8]][ArRasul and Annabi are not synonymous terms (3rd explanatory note)[9]][10].

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

TURKAN HATUN

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks a lot. Boka

Algerian Civil War

Hi Zora,

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

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

Lomilomi Edits

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

Hey there

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

Hindustani and Bollywood

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

Personal attack

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force

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

I'll send you an email in a bit

Dear Zora,

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

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

First of all, welcome back!

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

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

Sad

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

User:Subhash bose

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

Welcome back (even if it's just partially)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relax take a deep breath

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

Historiography of Islam

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

Feedback

Dear Zora, do you have any feedback on my work here [11] ? Thanks --Aminz 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Hindi films

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

Thanks ref. Cinema of India article

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

Welcome back

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:CrazyInSane RfC

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

hello

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

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

hi zora -wrt-Aishwarya Rai

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

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

Comment moved from user page

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

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

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

Re:

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

Kaaba Coordinates

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

Edit war at Black Stone

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

Update on dispute

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

FAO Zora

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

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

Personal Insults and Accusations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also I don't appreciate your characterization of me as a fantasist [12]. I thought Zen buddhists would be calm and dignified, I can't believe what I heard from you though.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

iawtc

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

drv

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

Category:Sharia

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

Al-Tabari

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

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

Salman Khan

Hello, Zora, there is a fan of Salman Khan's page who claims that Salman popularised the name "Prem" - while I think this is possible, it really needs a reference and belongs into an article like Prem (name) or anything. He wrote half a novel on the discussion page of Khan and I responded. Could you have a look? Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Linkspammer

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

Wendy Doniger

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

Dress Code

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

Dear Arch Nemesis

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

Aisha's age at marriage

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

Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam

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

Hey Zora!

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

Who cares?

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

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

Fatima Zahra

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

I need help

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

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

Hi!

Hi Zora :)

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

Sanjeev Kumar

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

Spammer

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

Historiography of early Islam

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