User talk:Zora/2005archive

Summaries on Bollywood movie list

hi Zora, the summaries should atleast give a small intro to the movie that has been mentioned. This I think would be a information in proper direction. The readers would probably not move to the complete article if they find the short description vague. We probably should write a description thats short and sweet, but describes the movie properly. (Look at the imdb way of doing that). If you think it makes the article too lengthy, we'd better remove the short descriptions and mention just the movie names. :) But the list is anyway bound to get lengthy and bloated when the other hits of bollywood get added. We can even think of having a TOC for the entries. --H P Nadig 08:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seeking you support

I am seeking your support and participation for starting the "Indian Collaboration of the Week". Please enlist your support on the page Wikipedia_talk:Indian_wikipedians'_notice_board if you would like to support. Thanks Arunram 08:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Muslim music

"The religious music of the Arabs encompasses the music of Christians as well as that of Moslems. We will confine ourselves here to the music of the Moslems, which is based on the same structural elements as secular Arabian music. The church music of the Christian Arabs, on the other hand, has its roots in foreign musical cultures: in Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Anglican, as well as in Coptic and Maronite church music." Habib Hassan Touma (1996). The Music fo the Arabs, p.152, trans. Laurie Schwartz. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press. ISBN 0931340888. Hyacinth 18:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since you "don't have strong opinions about these matters" and you should have no problem relaxing and taking the time to notice that I did not create "Category:Muslim music" and to read the articles contained in that very category: Category:Muslim music. Adhan is the Islamic call to prayer, Qur'an reading is the reading of the Qur'an, Qawaali is an Islamic and/or Sufi devotional musical genre performed in Sufi shrines throughout Pakistan and India. Arguably these are all religious genres. After taking the time to read Arab music and Muslim music you will find that a more appropriate question is not "are these genres Muslim?", but "are they music?" Hyacinth 19:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did not write anything about the Sufis. Perhaps you are confused. Hyacinth 03:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to engage on a musical topic. Hyacinth 20:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Striver

See? It would have been better to confront the apologist right away (as I was doing) instead of encouraging him to check "Sunni bias" of all articles OneGuy 22:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Muslim Music

I would vote for keeping some of what Hyacinth had.

And I don't think "Naat" applies only to Pakistani and/or Punjabi forms. At least North India needs inclusion--Urdu being a major language there. Though I don't think Naat is only an Urdu/South Asian form; Abu Ayub Ansari (Ebu Eyup Ensari) is mentioned as the first "Naatkhwan"...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:31, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I will go back and find stuff I want to put back in. Not Sufis specifically. But also pointing out that Taziya, Noha and Marsiya, for example, are usually Shia forms and so on. And Naat is not just Sufi.
And the Hamd form is not mentioned at all...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
I think I finally figured out the problem I had with the article. Have put a comment on it's Talk page.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:01, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for telling you the wrong definition of Noha. http://www.learningurdu.com/terminology.asp—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:44, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Arabic term for what we call "Naat" in Urdu is most probably "Nasheed". Was reminded of this recently.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

"prophet Muhammad" in Sufism

Let's not overdo the toning down of religiosity. One does not say "president Bush" or "prophet Jeremiah", but "President Bush" or "Prophet Jeremiah"; in the same way, it should be "Prophet Muhammad". Maybe the removal of the article "the" before the name will satisfy everyone.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:49, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Behave Yourself!

Zora, your comments to User:Hpnadig were completely out of line. I agree his contributions were rambling and it was obvious english was not his first language, but they were valuable nonetheless and the Wikipedia philosophy works in such a way that bad grammar will get amended as you yourself have done in this case. That does not mean you should go around telling people not to contribute, behaviour like that will get you banned. This is a friendly warning, from one adult to another, just think before you react next time, okay? Nicholas 13:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain in more detail?

Copied from User talk:Nickshanks:

Dear Nick,

You left a message on my talk page scolding me for a message that I had left for hpnadig, deleted two of my messages, and threatened to have me banned from Wikipedia.

I'm somewhat confused by all of this. I know I'm sometimes clumsy in social interactions (I have Asperger's syndrome), but I usually do OK online, where I can take my time and review my comments to make sure that they don't break any official or social rules.

Judging by your outrage, I must have done something terrible, but I'm not sure what, or what I should have done differently. I know we're not supposed to do personal attacks, but does telling someone that he doesn't write well constitute a personal attack? Since even you admit that the writing in question was sub-par, I don't see that saying it out loud was evil. I might have said it BETTER -- can you tell me how I could have done it?

I used to just change people's writing without any comment, but had people telling me that this was rude and that I should communicate with people who have taken usernames and try to collaborate with them. But it seems that here I should just have corrected hpnadig's edits without saying anything.

I'm also confused by your deletion of my message to pchere. I left that because I was trying to follow the rules about communicating reasons for my edits, and I thought that I was being friendly rather than rude.

Hoping for some enlightenment, Zora 22:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zora, I was not aware you had asperger's so allow me to first respond to the above and then to clarify some of the points I originally made:
  • Any comments that got removed when I posted were not of my own doing: I clicked the little + button at the top to append a comment to your user page. I have no idea if this is correct or not, but I suspect that if others come along and add comments before I've finished mine, they will get removed. Were both of the missing comments made within half an hour or so of mine, or were they old comments from days before?
  • I did not threaten to have you banned, I warned you that what you did, should it continue, would get you into trouble with the administrators and you *might* get banned, depending on how serious things had got. But that's talking hypothetically.
  • I was not outraged, but you did seriously upset Hpnadig and he expressed to me that he considered leaving the english wikipedia because of your comments. I had no qualms with you saying that his writing was sub-par, but the manner in which you did so, and most importantly the fact that you told him to stop editing and go away are what upset him and angered me. For the record I don't know Hpnadig and we have only spoken a couple of times on here to one another, but he came to me for solace when he read what you had told him to do. Since you requested, Here is how I would have worded a comment to Hpnadig about his contributions:
Hi there, I noticed you have been expanding the article on Bollywood films with more detailed descriptions of the films. I hope you don't mind, but as it seems English was not your first language I have amended the descriptions to be more concise and improve the grammar used therein. ~~~~
My main complaint was not that you commented or that you said his contributions were below par (though that was badly worded), the main reason I didn't approve or what you had said to Hpnadig was because you told him to stop editing. We are an open community and all contributions are welcome, those that can be subsequently improved upon will be, just as you did.
Again I just want to apologise for removing other comments on your user page, that was completely unintentional and I point the finger of blame at bugs in the Wikipedia software :-) I hope this clarifies matters for you. If you ever want to ask me to look over a comment you're worried might be taken badly, or that you have not got confidence is correct, just let me know and I will respond quickly. Thanks, and try not to frighten the little ones :) Nicholas 22:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I saw your post on village pump regarding someone deleting things from Islamic related articles. The most effective way to deal with that (or 3 revert rules or other problems) is to post directly to the admin board, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. You can add that page to your watch list OneGuy 12:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comments. Nazli 01:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Main Hoon Na // -> Zayed Khan

Hey, you are very welcome. Thanks for cleaning up my summary. Since I'm a newbie, I'm thankful for all the help I can get.

Regards,
Plumcouch

Khilafat Movement

Will look at it. That page is way too small/short anyway.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:20, Feb 22, 2005 (UTC)

Great para at Khilafat Movement#The caliphate! Is there equivalent text in Caliph? There should.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:46, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Muslim educational institutions

Just started Muslim educational institutions. Please take a look and see if you can help.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:21, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Abu Bakr (RA)

I see you are having quite a party at Abu Bakr. Let me see if I can help:

  • Why is saying that:
Abu Bakr's swift action in suppressing these revolts is credited with safeguarding the expansion of the nascent Islamic empire.
a problem? I might just drop replace "safeguarding the expansion of" with something like "keeping the nascent Islamic state together and laying the foundation of the empire(s) to come" or something. What say?
  • You also removed:
It is generally credited that while Khadijah was the first person to accept Islam, and Ali is the first boy to accept Islam, Abu Bakr was the first adult male to accept Islam.
I grew up a pretty mainstream Sunni in Nothern Nigeria and Pakistan, and that is what we were told. And I bet the Shi'as would like to agree with it even more. We could qualify it to say that some Sunni groups don't agree and present what their believe is. No?
  • On the use of the idolatory terminology, I agree with you. How about we put in something that describes the all the characterizations. Maybe something like:
Trouble started soon after Abu Bakr's election, in the form of threats to the unity and stability of the new community and the state. Various Arab tribes of Hejaz and Nejd raised issues that challenged the new leader. The most prominent in history have been the refusal off some to pay Zakat, the poor due. Others outright apostatized and returned to the their pre-Islamic faiths and traditions to different degrees. They claimed that they had submitted to Muhammad and that with Muhammad's death, they were again free. Abu Bakr insisted that they had not just submitted to a leader but acceeded to the Muslim community, of which he was the new head. Apostasy is a capital offense under Islamic law, and Abu Bakr declared war on the rebels. This was the start of what is known to history as the Ridda wars, Arabic for the Wars of Apostasy. The severest struggle was the war with the Ibn Habib al-Hanefi, who claimed to be a prophet and Muhammad's true successor. The Muslim general Khalid bin Walid finally defeated al-Hanefi at the battle of Akraba. Abu Bakr's swift action in suppressing these revolts is credited with keeping the nascent Islamic state together and laying the foundation of the empire(s) to come.

What say?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Looks kinda solved! But I'll put it on my watchlist... I haven't been watching stuff too closely lately, though - busy trying to put together Algerian civil conflict, which, given the massive lack of decent sources, is not easy. - Mustafaa 18:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Victorian fashion

Hi, I reverted your edit, for reasons I mentioned on talk. I think you made some good points, but don't think everything written before your essay was worthless. I'm not sure why you removed most of what had been in the article, rather than adding to it or modifying it as needed. I think an article combining the info from your version and the one you replaced would be better than either version is seperately. -- Infrogmation 05:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Understand I appreciate your additions, but think they would better be made by mostly adding to the existing article rather than scrapping everything before. Certainly the article can be improved, but I don't think everything preciding your edit was "misinformation". Things you removed included mention of development of artificial dies, and mention of and wikilinks to our articles on top-hat and bloomers. If these were irrelevent or misinformation, I think you need to explain why. You also deleted the external links and categories for the article. Yes, editors are welcome to "be bold", but part of that means that other editors may "be bold" in reverting if they find some of that "boldness" inappropriate.
I put back some of your text into the article, admittedly at present in a rather rough form stylistically. Your edits are very welcome, but please do not remove information without explanation. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 16:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guru Dutt

Hi... you left a message saying someone wrote an article from this IP about that topic and that you want to reach them to have them justify that it isn't a copyright violation or else you'll remove it.

First up, this IP is a shared proxy IP address served out by AOL, which means it changes several times while someone is signed on (and may have changed between the time I saw the message and the time I save this, hard to predict). There's virtually no chance that you'll be able to contact the person who actually submitted that article, because the IPs change rapidly and they could be on any one of a hundreds of other ones right now.

Second up, you made me curious, so I googled. The text comes from 216.152.71.145/filmmakers/gurudutt/gurudutt.html -- so you don't need to just assume it's a violation, it is. In fact I bet that site ripped it off from some printed text somewhere, and maybe the article was fromt hat text instead of the site, but that's just me. Either way, it's not original. 64.12.117.8 09:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad

Hi, you removed my statement In most western liberal democracies a girl cannot be married at that age and consummation would be considered statutory rape. from the Muhammad article. I am not a regular editor of that article but I came to do some editting because this quote was on the page:

Most people and all Humanists criticize his marriage to Aisha, as principal traditions say that she was only nine years old when the marriage was consummated, making Muhammad a pedophile in addition to a murderer of his enemies -- in short, much more akin to a criminal than to a prophet.

I did not want to be accused of being one sided for the prophet so I added that statement you removed. I am just curious as to where that issue is brought up because I do know many detractors will reference it and even though I do not really buy into it I think it should have some mention and maybe even on his main page. Thanks gren 08:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I just want to make sure it was general consensus that I was not being one sided on the issue. gren 19:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hawaiian

Hi Zora,

On a random note, I was wondering - do you speak any Hawaiian? I attempted to make a couple of seed articles at the rather underpopulated haw:, and I was wondering if anyone else was interested in trying it out. - Mustafaa 03:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool! I wouldn't really dare to translate either :), but I figured a couple of stubs (haw:Meka, for instance) might get some attention from people that could do better. That would certainly be a great piece of homework to set kids - write a Wikipedia article in Hawaiian... - Mustafaa 23:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Israel and the United Nations

Would you consider reviewing this article and the associated Talk and giving your input? Thanks.--A. S. A. 08:23, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


The Islam page

Could you please cease your blanket reversions on the Islam page which is stultifying the contributions of many new editors.

You seem to have appointed yourself guardian of that page and have been effectively intervening whenever anyone attempts to contribute to the artice in a way that does not suit your own POV.

With all due respect I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is a colloborative encyclopedia that seeks the contributions of all editors who care to do so and therefore would like to encourage you to be more respectful of alternate POVs and follow the same requirements you seem so keen on reminding other editors.

I do not believe that the POV of veteran editors on Wikipedia should be granted any greater validity than any other editor.

Thanks Xlaba22

Xlaba22

I do not have great enough offhand knowledge to differentiate between Qur'an and Hadith in what is Islamic thought nor do I know how to see past translation. However, I am pretty sure that Abraham and Adam are mentioned in the Qur'an which would support my belief that he just doesn't want to associate Islam with Jewish or Christian prophets. You mentioned that it was a Salafi view... which... is it? because if they are mentioned in the Qur'an then Salafis would accept it no? gren 19:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rani Mukherjee Edit

Thanks a lot. :)

Judaism

I'm not sure why you think that being Jewish disqualifies a writer from knowing anything about anything else ([1]), but please don't remove material for that reason again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that I accused you of anti-Semitism. Your edit summary said merely: ‘Why should a Jewish novelist be any authority on what the buraq looks like?” It seems to me that my response was tempered and to the point; you seem to be rather over-sensitive concerning accusations of anti-Semitism.
The article didn't describe him as an authority, incidentally, but quoted a relevant passage from one of his novels. I fail to see your objection. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Buraq

One editor, Mel Etitis, has added a quote from the novelist Leon Uris to the buraq article. I've removed it twice, pointing out that a novelist (a Jewish novelist at that) is not a good source for Islamic folklore, and he's put it right back. I found a picture of a public-domain Persian miniature with a buraq, added that, and he still insists on his quote.

I can't figure out why he's insisting on this. You're a level-headed sort -- could you go on over there and see what you think? I think the article would be better without the quote, but if you think it's OK, I'll shut up. Zora 11:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you think?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dear IFaqeer -- what a cool solution! By setting up a different category for the quote, you've completely removed the sting -- at least as far as I'm concerned. If it's clear that it's in the category "this is what artists do with the idea", then I don't confuse it with "the Muslim definition of what a buraq is". Thanks! Zora 19:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors think of the suggestion.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, I didn't add the quotation (as the edit History shows); I simply couldn't see why it was removed, my attention being attracted by the peculiar edit summary. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hudud

Hi. I am not sure what you know about this subject but I would like your (and anyone else's) help. This is a subject that can make Islam look horrible if handled in a bad way, or just, or confused.... well, it can do many things. I know for this I need peer review because these are usually the issues (if not stated with this title) that anti-Islamic sites attack Islam with. Information about this on the internet is also fairly scarce (which is why I linked the expensive book that I plan on getting). I do not wish to present one side as greater than another because... well, I truly have no bias on this issue. I am confused myself, but I know this is an issue that should be talked about. Many thanks for mustering any help you can. gren 12:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and I understand completely. I don't understand the senseless violence which is, unfortunately, attached to Islam these days. Things like hadud do make me question if violence (although slightly less arbitrary than the WTC attack) is built into Islamic law, if not the Qur'an. Granted the argument would be that such actions are necessary for a better society... but me, being against the death penalty, cannot really trust human judges enough even if that for some reason was the best method of dealing with crimes. Always err on the side of non-violence is my viewpoint. Thank you for all the great work you have done :) gren 14:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Y'all want to discuss this over e-mail? I am at iFaqeer@gmail.com . I can provide what insights I have... The way I see it, it is not violence, but justice that is built into Islam, and like other systems before and after it (Christianity, American Democracy, the French Revolutionary spirit...), people have taken justice and interpreted it in anger to justify blind retribution of an extreme nature; others have used it to justify their own private agendas...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!)

your edits on Indian movies

I saw some of your nice edits on indian movies, and use of exact words. I was just wondering... anyway, fine edits.--Bhadani 07:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

I have just finally got to publishing my thoughts and translations on Sufi Poetry in Urdu. For now, it will be mainly on the following page:

http://urdu-ke-naam.blogspot.com

Check it out!—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

That blog's not really "mine" (my main blog is at http://iFaqeer.blogspot.com), it's a collaboration with some folks who are mainly in Hyderabad (Deccan) (see Hyderabad, India and Hyderabad state), one of the homes of Urdu.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Scolding"

I don't really see it as scolding. My take is that we've gotten to a point in our collaborations on Wikipedia where we can tell each other like it really is without a fear of the other person getting angry or misinterpreting it. That's a really, really, wonderful thing to have!—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hadith rewrite

I'm looking over this now, I made two little edits of little significance as of now... I do think you might give me too much credit for ability for good input (and I think I might lean towards an anti-hadith bias). Hopefully I can do some good, feel free to question any changes, etc. gren 06:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate all your work on Hadith, too. BrandonYusufToropov 14:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

A couple of things about your last edit:

  • The wet nurse issue. I haven't read Ibn Ishaq, but the concept of the wet nurse Halima is very central to the narrative (mythology, if you will) of Muhammad's life for Muslims—if not the history. It might be useful to acknowledge that; maybe with language like "the traditions about Muhammad's life often mention that following Meccan customs, his mother sent him to the desert to be wet nursed by a Bedouin Mother. The desert air was fresher than Mecca’s, and it was felt that in this climate, a city boy would have a sturdier start in life...."
  • The tomb is in the mosque as far as I remember. I was last there in 1980 or so—and the structure and size of the mosuqe has only been expanded since.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards

Filmfare Awards

I will continue with all the articles of the Filmfare Awards, but it`s a little bit difficult to find lists with alle the winners. Currently, I'm using the ones I find on indiafm.com/filmfare, but there are certain categories which are mentioned in the Filmfare atricle here on Wiki, but not on Indiafm.com or anywhere else I looked. If you have a site where there is a complete list of all past and present winners & categories, I'd be eternally greatful. :) And thanks again for your kind words on my talk page. Regards, --Plumcouch 20:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zora -- please consider voting

Please consider voting at:

Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory

to rename articles that use the pejorative term "Conspiracy theory" to denigrate the content of the article.

Do the titles of WP articles generally pass partisan judgment on the subject under discussion? Should they? BrandonYusufToropov 02:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad, Muhammad

The contributions that I am restoring to Muhammad and Jihad are important for NPOV. We cannot ignore the actions that many attribute to the historical Muhammad if we are going to present the Muslim view of Muhammad. While the ban on JoeM needs to be enforced, this just means reverting his edits, but if he turns out to be correct, anyone else is free to restore his edits. ChantingFox 19:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JoeM's motives might be to vandalize Wikipedia, but that doesn't have anying to do with the fact that a new paragraph in the intro on alternative views on Muhammad is necessary to de-pietize the article and NPOV. ChantingFox 19:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an impersonator, most likely JoeM due to these comments. He has copied my userpage and talk page, and redirected my user page to the article "douche". Note the difference between his username and mine. --Chanting Fox 20:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your version of the intro. However, Urchid keeps reverting to his own POV version, and doesn't seem to be stopping.Yuber(talk) 19:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An "I don't like you" message

Zora, no one cares about your personal stories. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to force your overly politically-correct views on others. I have always considered myself to be politically correct, but you cross the line into sheer lunacy. user:129.21.136.187

Answer to your question

Hi,

I saw the message you left me in my talk page about your conflicts in the Khuzestan related articles.

The first step on the dispute resolution process is to talk with the other party and try to get a solution, but as you said, it was in vain. The second step is the RfC (not the mediation). Then, you can get a mediation and, finally, the arbitration (which must be used carefully, because arbitrators give resolutions on the matters).

I'd like to assist you as your advocate. If you want me to do it, reply me on my talk page. --Neigel von Teighen 14:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major, major changes on Qur'an with no discussion

This would be an anonymous textual criticism proponent grinding a one-sided "it's-obvious-there-were-multiple-authors" axe. It's the sort of thing that infuriates me bcs it leaves me with three unappealing options:

  • Rewrite to instill some kind of neutral viewpoint to textual criticism questions (very time-consuming, though I can do it, but I'm prettying up text for someone who will invariably revert my efforts);
  • Revert to last version you saved, leaving a note that wholesale changes and expansions should be discussed on talk page;
  • Ignore.

Any ideas? BrandonYusufToropov 16:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for 2. Unless you have a lot of time on your hands.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the note, Zora. I will probably take a stab at a FAIR :) rewrite of this tonight. I'm going to mention on the talk page, though, that 2) is always an option if the next step is to simply toss out the rewrite. Best to you and your daughter, and happy sitting at the zendo. BrandonYusufToropov 19:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts with SouthernComfort

Hi, I'm now involved on a little 'authority' (see Talk:Ahvaz) discussion with your counterpart. Don't worry: I like this things :) Also, I've added the {{npov}} tag into the Khuzestan and Ahvaz articles as a warning for the eventual readers. --Neigel von Teighen 21:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Comfort

I appreciate your statement on my talk page concerning BCE/CE. I am also sorry to hear about your problems with Southern Comfort. For what it is worth, he and I have talked only about specific problems he was having in a specific article. Although I support and encouraged his position, I also urged him to refrain from personal attacks and be courteous. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BC, etc

I'm not changing articles that were previously always in BCE notation to BC. I am merely reverting recent provocative changes made by a small number of editors who are displeased that Slrubenstein's proposal has failed, and are attempting to force it on WP by the backdoor. My understanding of current practice is that WP accepts both styles, but you should not change arbitrarily from one to the other - all I am doing is reverting arbitary changes to the original. Kind regards, jguk 08:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, I am not changing any articles that have always used BCE to BC - merely reverting very recent changes (in line with current practice). A couple of points to note: (1) WP has always accepted apparent inconsistencies (see for example WP:NPOV, which isn't in point here, but which does refer to our willingness to accept inconsistencies); (2) The notation BC/AD has long since lost its Christian connotations and is used worldwide without any difficulties (except for here on WP!). When the question has been asked, most people have no idea what the etymology of "AD" is, for instance! Not that the etymology is important, just its current meaning, which is as a date notation. Kind regards, jguk 08:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk

Please take my advice and limit your discussion with this user. He will intentionally provoke and harass you in an effort to have you blocked or whatever (I have no idea what this guy is all about). It is not worth it. This matter of BCE/CE in non-Christian articles will have to eventually be taken to arbitration, I think. SouthernComfort 10:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk

I am filing an ArbCom complaint. If you think you have cause to get involved/something to add, go here [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaase stop impairing Wikipedia

I'm begging you to please please please stop sabotaging the efforts we put into enriching Wikipedia.

I dont have time to argue with you day in and day out about facts that you dont know about. I wasted my entire day today just arguing about something that is well accepted.

e.g. Persian is a level 4 language. It is so complicated that its vocabulary pronounciation and even spelling differs from town to town, let alone from time to time. You dont even speak the Goddam language. How can you then claim to be in a position to refute The Cambridge History of Iran when it says: "the name Khuzestan is derived from the Elamites ("Ūvja" according to , 2, p259)?

The reasons you give in deleting everything I write are so ridiculous that I'm left wodering what agenda you have.

Please, I'm a busy man. I have a wife, I have a job, I have technical reports to prepare. I just finished submitting a report about using an RTP link to monitor the controls of North Carolina's Pulstar Reactor.

What little time I have left I spend trying to fill up the badly needed empty pages and gaps of Iran and Iranian related subjects, to enrich Wikipedia and inform the world about who we Iranians are.

The reason we Americans are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan is that people dont know enough about Islam, and the ME region. I'm trying to fill that gap.

And you come around sabotaging every fuckin shit I write, flushing my efforts down the toliet with your highly opinionated up-rooting edits (which often have lots of editorial errors too).

Why???????

Why the censorhip?????????

I could have spent this precious time expanding another stub article like Markazi Ardabil Zanjan Kurdistan Kermanshah Chahar Mahaal and Bakhtiari Kohkiluyeh and Buyer Ahmad Sistan and Baluchistan Yazd Semnan Mazandaran Golestan North Khorasan Razavi Khorasan South Khorasan, ad infinitum, instead of engaging in this stupid childish skirmish you keep dragging everbody into.

Why do you insist on ruining and hampering my efforts?

Please, stop this game. I'm openly, and officially asking you to stop obstructing the flow of efforts we are putting in to finally have a source of information that is not tied to the biased politically correct media.--Zereshk 22:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration matter concerning Jguk

The Arbitration matter concerning Jguk has opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence. --mav 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zora, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Evidence#24_May_2006, you accidentally entered the year incorrectly. I'd fix it, but I don't want to get involved any more deeply in this argument than I already am, and certainly not in disputes between editors. I'm sure everyone will understand the year 2006 there to be 2005, but you might want to correct it to 2005. Tomer TALK 23:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Urdu Update

Thought I would post this here FYI:

http://ifaqeer.blogspot.com/2005/05/urdu-blossoming-on-internet.html

I am wondering whether we should start an Urdu Project Page. It would help in reaching across countries and continents to work on issues related to the language? Or maybe an "Urdu-Hindi-Hindustani" Project page?

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

There's somewhat of a dispute going on at Banu Qurayza. I think your sceptical perspective on early Islamic history is underrepresented by both sides... - Mustafaa 23:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk comment above

I noticed Zereshk comment above and I have to concur with what he is saying. Zora , you say that you are a Buddhist, well did you know that Siddharta Gautama believed that it is not good Karma to stand in the way of truth, not that you would do such a thing.--Urchid 23:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zora! Happy to add the clothing links; would love any feedback on clothing terminology - I did a complete restructure and I am new to Wiki-ing. PKM 20:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism / Islamic fascism

Hey, I just noticed the arguments about these and the redirects from the talk that User:CARPEDIEM left over a "racist" comment by User:Klonimus about Mosque -> Mosquito (which I actually found to be clever...) but... err, that's rambling. What do you think about those pages... what we are left with on Islamofascism well, just compare it to User:Klonimus/Islamofascism. I just trust your neutrality more or less so I'm wondering what you think should be done with these? (I should mention that the version Klonimus saved needs some help at any rate even if the articles should be more inclusive) gren 08:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CE

Hi Zora

I've just seen your edit of 28 May on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence. I thought it might be useful to outline my rationale for avoiding the usage of "CE" or "AD" on articles that relate to Islam (or indeed articles that relate to any period after, say, the year 200).

The main point is that they are unnecessary. The reader already knows what they are. I know you raised the point that a reader may expect years to be given in a different religious calendar (presumable years AH for articles on Islam) rather than the more conventional format. I don't believe that is the case for an international encyclopaedia. Almost all English-speakers use the Gregorian calendar for dates (though they may also use another calendar as well). That's the one they would be expecting.

Also, even if a Muslim was expecting to see years AH rather than AD (and I doubt he would in the first place), that Muslim would know immediately that we were not using years AH, but years AD instead, very very soon. If you are talking about the early years of Islam and suddenly mention the year 650, say, is it not obvious what you mean?

This takes us to the question of what is the benefit, if any, of using "AD" or "CE"? I personally can see none. Indeed, I think there are positive disadvantages in using CE. Not everyone understands them (they just are not used in the UK, for instance). And even those who might have been taught what CE means may be at least momentarily confused - more may just not like seeing unfamiliar notation everywhere. Although I think these problems are most acute with "CE", it is also possible that they might arise with "AD".

You say you use "CE" to orientate the reader. That may be a good idea if you in your non-WP life frequently write for readers that fully understand CE notation and often use another calendar. But here we have a different audience - it is a worldwide audience that does not have these issues. At best, a reader is imparted with no more information by adding "CE" to a date. At worst, a reader is confused or chooses just to go elsewhere because the style is not for them. You may think the latter is only true of a minority - but where there are no real benefits in appending "CE" (or indeed "AD"), why bother?

Stepping back a bit, on articles closely related to Islam, there is, of course, another date notation system we could use - AH. My personal view is that it is useful, interesting information to include the dates AH, but at the same time it is important to recognise that our readers will be expecting the Gregorian calendar. This is why I prefer giving a date in the Gregorian calendar first (neither prefixed by AD nor suffixed by CE) and then giving the date AH in brackets (with AH appearing there).

Finally I note that I do not see the dispute at RfAr as being particularly relevant here. It really is about how a small group of editors attempted to enforce a proposal that had recently failed. It is unrelated to the adjustments I made to the Islam-related articles which, as I note above, were made in the interest of clarity for the readers. Kind regards and all the best, jguk 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The future of Islam

Hi Zora. I don't like to just revert you, but have you considered the can of worms that a section called "The future of Islam" is likely to open, as different people attempt to put forward their own visions of this hypothetical situation, and enumerate the peoples that are supposedly converting en masse to or from Islam? Or the distinct fishiness of the Qataani claims (see Talk:Islam)? I'm inclined to think this whole issue falls under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", and that only the current growth rates should be left in. - Mustafaa 00:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Haute Couture

Zora: By all means, change it. Maybe it would be a good idea to insert something to this effect and maybe even have a list on the page titled Haute Couture Accessorie makers (whatever). That way, researchers can easily find and/or link to all persons involved in high fashion instead. ?? What about Hermès? Thanks. Ted Wilkes 23:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Zora: Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I'm not suggesting commercial links, only to Wikipedia Articles to make it as user-friendly as possible. What I'm saying is that accesories are integral to clothing so maybe on the bottom of the Haute Couture page add a note that says:

  • "In recent years, clothing accessories, an integral part of HC have been referred to as Haute Couture etc. etc. (give your explanation about proper definition and other relevant material). Then

Haute Couture accessory manufacturers:

By doing this, it makes it easy for anyone researching to link to whatever articles on high fashion Wiki has. I actually think Haute Couture should be merged as a section of Fashion but really don't care. If you examine my work, you will see I go to great lengths to make easy linking to other Wiki articles because of Wiki's poor search engine so no one has to wonder "Now where the hell is so-and-so." Misspell Leiber and you get nothing. I think eaasy links are extremely important. Thanks. I'm no expert, so I'll leave it up to you. Ted Wilkes 13:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Do you read international commercial fiction?

Ahwaz

Le Strange's claim is plausible. On of Arabic's odder features is the broken plural, of which one of the several subtypes works like this:

  • Sawt "sound" > aSwaat "sounds"
  • `amal "work" > a`maal "works"
  • qadam "foot" > aqdaam "feet"
  • miil "mile" > amyaal "miles".

and huuz (a word I've never come across) would go to ahwaaz. However, it would have to be the plural of huuz, not khuuz.

I don't know much about the area, but I'll go to alwaraq.org and see if I can find anything helpful, beyond the Muqaddasi quote, which doesn't do too much. - Mustafaa 17:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

فحارب أردشير سدنتها وقتلها، وغنم أموالاً وكنوزاً عظاماً كانت لها: وإنه كان بنى ثماني مدن؛ منها بفاس مدينة أردشير خرة؛ وهي جور، ومدينة رام أردشير، ومدينة ريو أردشير، وبالأهواز هرمز أردشير؛ وهي سوق الأهواز، وبالسواد به أردشير، وهي غربي المدائن، وإستاباذ أردشير؛ وهي كرخ ميسان، وبالبحرين فنياذ أردشير؛ وهي مدينة الخط، وبالموصل بوذ أردشير؛ وهي حزة.
And Ardashir fought her idol-makers (?) and killed her, and won great property and treasures that were hers: and he built eight cities; among them in Faas the town of Ardashir-Khora, which is Jur, and the town of Ram-Ardashir, and the town of Rev-Ardashir, and in al-Ahwaaz Hormuz-Ardashir, which is Suq al-Ahwaaz... - al-Tabari, Tarikh ar-rusul wal-muluk, p. 274, alwaraq.com. - Mustafaa 17:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems clear that "al-Ahwaaz" referred to the whole region, while the town was "Suuq al-Ahwaaz": وبلاد الأهواز واسعة وهي سبع كور ("and the land of al-Ahwaaz is broad, consisting of seven districts" - Ibn Khordadhbeh) - Mustafaa 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is good, from Lisan al-Arab: قال ابن سيده: والأَهْوازُ سَبْعُ كُوَرٍ بين البصرة وفارِسَ، لكل واحدة منها اسم، وجمعها الأَهْوازُ أَيضاً، وليس للأَهواز واحد من لفظه ولا يفرد واحد منها بِهُوزٍ

"Ibn Sayyidihi said: and al-Ahwaaz is seven districts between Basra and Fars, each with its own name, and their plural/collective is also al-Ahwaaz, and the word "al-Ahwaaz" has no singular form "huuz"." - Mustafaa 17:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

blankets

I'm glad to hear it (really! I'm also here to be educated, you know) — my point still stands, though :) dab (ᛏ) 18:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You censuring

Zora, I would appreciate if you would refrain from continuously censuring edits inserted in the Islam series of articles that do not conform with your image of Islam. I know that generally you try to be fair and impartial, but nevertheless you have been reverting a lot of my edits. Wikipedia is not a selective presentation of information that only cater to one POV. Maybe a refresh read of wikipedia NPOV policy would help. Thanks for you cooperation.--Urchid 10:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A. R. Rahman

Yeah, I've been listening to him for a while now. I didn't add him for a while because I wanted it to be musicians that I liked almost all of the music from, (which would be The Clash, The Beatles, Buddy Holly and probably The Cranberries). But since I had The Rolling Stones and they have some good songs and then some bad ones (satisfaction in my opinion) I figured I'd add Rahman even though I don't like all of his songs (and there are so many of them). Since you descrived Jamshid as "the L.A. Persian rocker" have you listened to any Junoon? I enjoy a fair amount of their music and they are Pakistani Rock. Thanks for the suggestion. :) gren 19:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering why other people don't react against these POV warriors. I did the RfC for the article a month ago, maybe a WP:RfC for SouthernComfort and Zereshk is the best to do. --Neigel von Teighen 23:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muhammereh

I think Muhammereh (Khorramshahr), -reh as opposed to -rah, is the correct Arabic form, as this is what I hear people saying in Khuzestan when speaking Arabic. I've never heard anyone use "Mohammerah," but as you've noted, this (and Muhammerah), are the most common forms available on the Internet (Muhammereh doesn't have any hits at all), so both forms should be used (if Muhammereh is actually correct). SouthernComfort 08:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome (Barnstar)

In response: Lol, okay. Your welcome. We never really had any major disagreement, but ofcourse there are differences between a Muslim and non-Muslim understanding of Islam. Hopefully learning more about this great religion will eliminate any disagreements between editors of different POVs. :)--Anonymous editor 04:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

...which I think will go a long way toward resolving unproductive disputes on pages that he and I both edit. Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Algerian Civil War

Hi Zora! In case you weren't busy enough already :), it would be nice to have more eyes on Algerian Civil War - I think it's approaching completion, with the main gap being missing pictures, and it's an interesting topic (if a depressing one.) - Mustafaa 00:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you're right about the need for some copyediting and maybe spinning-off - I tend to lose perspective on this topic. It is funny how some minor conflicts get lots of media time, and major ones are all but invisible - but one explanation leaps to mind in this case: most foreign journalists didn't dare set foot in the country after '94. - Mustafaa 00:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamic-clothing

Hi Zora. Yep, this article is not only very poorly written, but utterly redundant as well. Nevertheless, the criteria to qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion are very specific; and this article doesn't meet any of them.

Basically, speedies are used for cases of pure vandalism and/or nonsense - articles that contain no actual meaning at all. They must be indisputably worthless. If you take a look here, you can see examples of deleted content - the speedies should be immediately obvious... :)

The criteria for speedy deletion are deliberately narrow. Any Wikipedian with admin status can delete an article with three mouse clicks - limiting the circumstances under which they can do this is a Good Thing. Please leave me another note if I can be of any more help. Cheers --Rlandmann 07:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Changes to Islam article

Thanks Zora, I've replied on the Islam talk page. Paul August ☎ 14:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Attack of the Quran alone Muslims"

Same situation going on in the Muslim article. Please help me explain the issue to this anon IP "Quran aloner". Thanks & appreciate it.--Anonymous editor 22:49, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Heading

The current heading of the section in the Muhammad article is good. Good work. --Anonymous editor 00:08, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Quran Alone

Zora please check the disputes going on in the Quran Alone article. Anon user fails to understand neutral policy. Please check edit history and talk page for details. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:15, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you absolutely. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 01:06, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yuksel/Khizar

Zora, take a look at the Edip Yuksel article. Yes, they made it again! No citations given, all personal promotion without any balance and still classifies as vanity. I think they took Gren's statement that "perhaps the article should not have been deleted" over the limit. Still, just check it out. The article is massive and rallies support for both Khizar and Yuksel. I just can't get through to these guys. :) --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel

Interestingly enough, there was already a VfD on that page that passed and it was deleted... I personally think that Yuskel is screwing himself over (I suppose that's a good way to put it?) because if he wasn't such a self promoter then he would get more sympathy and I think a page. I do believe he deserves it for his Turkish Sunni works and it might be good at helping to un-anglo-fy this wiki some... however, he seems more interested in just selling his Qur'an alone views and not being encyclopedic. Do you really think he's completely unnotable (compared to Ali Sina and the like) even with his Turkish works? Then again, I probably need better sources for that. gren 29 June 2005 12:39 (UTC)

I do understand what you're saying. I was thinking of putting it up for undeletion, not sure. Maybe 84.etc.etc. will give more sources for why Edip is important (I assume he can read Turkish). gren 29 June 2005 13:21 (UTC)

Sari

Nice job, I read the first half (can't finish I have to get some Time Travel learning done) I need to do some disambiguations and avoiding redirects but that's all nothing work. Keep up the good work. :) gren 29 June 2005 13:21 (UTC)

Khizar

Khizar- Im here and listening. Heres my phone no again: 0049-511-4498174 n mobile no: 0049-17629291362 Why dont you show the courage and call me so we can discuss it all clearly. Edip Yuksel is at least ten times more notable then Ali Sina so if his article is deleted so should Sina's and all his stuff. Now please stop your bias.

I will make a comment to you 84.etc.etc. on Zora's talk page about this... O_o. Zora is not being POV. The difference between Edip's and Ali's article is that Ali Sina did not come and create the article and even the seemingly strong supporter of Ali Sina seems to back down. The problem was that User:Edip Yuksel created a page called Edip Yuksel which is going to right off the bat strike most people as vanity especially since it is a marginal case. If you were more willing to let others help with the article and didn't recreate it after deletion you might get more support. As for calling that number... Zora's user page says he lives in Hawaii... calling about that article is not going to work since this is community collaboration and a lot more than just him voted this for deletion. gren 29 June 2005 13:14 (UTC)

Khizar- Please note that the article Edip Yuksel was created by me with his permission.

Yuksel/Khizar/ anon IP 84.- (khizar)

Any ideas on what to do? I have been viewing promotion/POV pushing on the Quran Alone page. I would advise these users to create a special page on code 19 if they are able to make it neutral. But do you have any suggestions about what to do about this? Edit warring is getting out of hand. Also what happened to Edip Yuksel page? Send me a message when you have the time. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your response. No I had never experienced any of the "superstitious" stuff. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Striver

Okay I saw what you wrote to Mustafaa. I will help you out, where is the prob? --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Ok, striver is willing to address the concerns now - see Talk:Muhammad. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 01:36 (UTC)

I dont know if I'm satisfied; he's butchering the articles, taking any sense of coherency out of already well written (but not Shia saturated) articles. Something has to be done; he's tireless to say the least, which would be amazing if it wasn't for the fact that his grammar and spelling aren't his strong points, neither is his neutrality. Each article is going to descend into indictments into anyone he feels historically aggrieved by... Zora what do you suggest be done? I'd love to hear from you on this... I was thinking of posting an RFC or poll but I dont know what to do, Zora you'r ethe more experienced one.... --GNU4Eva 30 June 2005 05:21 (UTC)

ok I read your message, and it's really up to you what is done, I respect your experience (definitely more than mine). It's just also, in some ways he's making the Shia POV look pretty bad, all hateful and spiteful, and the articles are definitely less readable. --GNU4Eva 30 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)
In answer to your general concern: how about setting up a notice board, along the lines of Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics? Once interested users had been alerted to it, it could serve the purpose. - Mustafaa 1 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

ZORA DID YOU DELETE EDIP YUKSEL'S ARTICLE AGAIN?

If yes why did you do that when everything was set straight yesterday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.57.122 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 30 June 2005

84.130.57.122, Zora is not an admin, he cannot do that. Look at the deletion logs to see who did. gren 30 June 2005 12:47 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. All involved users are warned strongly to abide by our policies. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Akshay Kumar

hi. what was wrong with the picture I uploaded? I thought we could have magazine pictures. thanks! Mailyn 12:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]