User talk:Zora/2006archive3

Language

If my language is not encyclopedic then change my words don't revert my work. We need to make pages longer so it defines wikipedia's hard work.

Rani Mukerji

I knew i would find a source where they call Rani the QUEEN OF HEARTS. Actually, whenever they interview her, they call her the QUEEN OF HEARTS which was referred to Sridevi in her days. Aishwarya Rai is called the Queen Of Bollywood and so is Rani Mukerji again. It's a bit confusing. But usually they call her Queen of Hearts as she is a very nice person. Here's the source: [1] By the way, Zora, i found another new fact, Rani didn't change her last name bcoz of numerological reasons but because ‘Mukerji’ is the name on her passport and birth certificate. Here's the source for that: [2] Read the whole interview and find it for yourself. Thanks for your time. You rock!

DID Edits

Thanks for giving me feedback on my discussion. I tried to look at the history page and got completely confused (I'm new). It seemed from the discussion that people were confusing the concept of the disorder (a group of symptoms that appear together and impair functioning)with the idea of causation. Hence the "DID is caused by abuse -- I was abused and I have DID" vs. "I have DID, too, and I wasn't abused so it can't be caused by abuse" argument, which seems to have nothing to do about whether or not people's symptoms are genuine. I'm somewhat of a subscriber to the iatrogenic-socialization theory myself, in the sense that people in the US with certain therapists tend to use DID/MPD as a way to describe the symptoms of the distress they're feeling. It's real distress, the question is just what construct you use to describe it -- if you're a victim of war, you're told it's PTSD; if you're a victim of child abuse and/or you go to certain therapists, you're told it's MPD/DID. So could people agree that there is a specific set of symptoms that is labelled DID? And then discuss theories of causation and appropriate therapies? Or is that too POV?JenniSue 02:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts.

I for one thank you for your efforts in sticking with the Rajput page and although a lot of baseless unpleasantries were focussed on you by the extremist Hindus, I am sure the real Hindu brothers and sister on Wikipedia saw through the real genuine effort you displayed in trying to resolve this difficult issue. The arbitration is over and Im glad the result was seen for what it was, a bunch of childish bigots not prepared to work with others for the betterment of enlightening others on our culture and traditions. Unfortunately, I think Rajputs are now seen more as a quarelling bunch rather than what we try and say we are, lol. In fact I think this is an example of whats been going on between Rajputs for the past few centuries, they never unite and probably never will.

Thank you once again and keep up the good work friend. :) Raja

Zora, your efforts as always are appreciated and I can only thank you for your troubles. I have done some language cleaning up which I believe was very unencyclopedic such as 'treacheerously' and 'crushed' etc which I believe was left over from the previous 'editors'. I want to keep the feel of this article essentially Hindu which I dont/havent disputed, just that the reference to Muslim Rajputs be mentioned fairly and without bias or agenda that they do exist and still retain their ancetral pride and zeal. It took an arbcom to have this seen,lol! --Raja 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Karbala

Okay Zora I agree but according to Shias there were only 72 people with imam hussain but I am naming atleast 100 people. I you want u can move around all hundred names but please do not delete them. You can format anyway you want but please do not delete them. Thank You!

Links in Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) article

I must confess that I am now totally disappointed with wikipedia, with its inconsistancies and biases. Earlier, I had some hope in its success as a useful intellectual resource but now I feel that specially in reference to Muslims its only a new orientalist instrument. On one hand you are preaching me the manners of references, on the other hand when I asked you to check wiki/israel for 'Annotated list of Israeli media sources' which contains references to other languages resources, your consciounce didn't stir. Similarly, by only looking at the head lines one can guess the so called non-sectarian or unbiased pearls of wisdom. Anyway, I no longer want to deal with wikipedia and beleive that as Muslims we don't need its reference concerning Islamic articles. Thanks(Falcon007 08:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Islam and veneration for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Certainly Iqbal is dear to me, so is he to all the muslim world. As countless poets have praised prophet (pbuh), similarly counless people have written biographies of Prophet (pbuh). Why references from only two? Or why only a handful so called "non-sectarian" links. Please, do as you wish and be happy. I should get going and don't want to disturb your concentration.(Falcon007 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Kandukondain Kandukondain

Rydia and I just watched this today. Thanks for the suggestion.. first Tamil movie I've seen (I think). All the others have been Hindi. In any case, I quite enjoyed it. Not as good as Devdas (2002) but good. Thanks for the recommendation... we started to watch Tampopo but the VHS quality in our library was horrible... so, I'm going to try to find the DVD. gren グレン ? 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP ERASING MY WORK FROM THE BATTLE OF KARBALA

ZORA, PLEASSEEE STOP ERASING MY WORK FROM THE BATTLE OF KARBALA IT TOOK ME A LOT OF TIME TO DO IT. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE NAMES OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO SCARIFIED THEIR LIVES FOR IMAM HUSSAIN! I THINK I KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS MORE THEN YOU, OK N THERE R OTHER ARTICLES THAT U CAN EDIT IF U LIKE TO. THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING!

Robert Stanek

You recently left a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruin Mist about articles related to the author Robert Stanek. You may like to know that the page on the man himself is now up for deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek. I avoided merging the two together as I felt that the arguments for deleting the pages on the fiction didn't quite apply to the page on the writer, but thought it best to let you know in case you wanted to participate in this related discussion. Shimgray | talk | 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV vs VIP

Hi Zora/2006archive3. I noticed you added an entry to Vandalism in Progress. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Vandalism in Progress are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) As a side note, the user has since been blocked. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but it looks like the admin I asked to do the block ran off somewhere. I've listed it now on WP:AIV, so it should be taken care of shortly. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There we go! Now they've been blocked. Although, the admin that took care of it only blocked for 24 hours, but I'll be sure to watch the user for all edits. Cheers! --lightdarkness (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I understand much better now. If I could figure out how to award you a hand-dyed alpaca lace star, I would. JenniSue 05:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Picture from Devdas

Hi, Zora. :) About that Ash-Picture which is distorted: I checked it and it looked completely fine to me. Not really print quality, but okay, sooooo ... this may sound a little bit weird, but what do you see when looking at it? I see her in her blue saree from Devdas sitting on a chair. The large version of it is a tiny mit pixel-ish, but quite fine and the small pic of it in the article itself is absolutely okay. --Plumcouch 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elongated as in "stretched"? (You see English's not my first tongue as you have probably noticed). We *are* talking about this pic of her, right? -->Ash I mean it's not perfect (see certain parts of the background), but one can see and identify her, right? And I used CTRL-F5 to load the newest version of it after emptying my cache and it still looking fine. I uploaded it this afternoon after that Dell-guy vandalized it and it's the same Devdas-picture that has been in the article earlier. --Plumcouch 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it looks okay to you, too, I'm going to add it again. Maybe it's a Wiki problem, dunno. --Plumcouch 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't issue a legal threat. I made a statement that comments by Zeraeph and JenniSue were bordering on liable. That's not a threat. --Mjformica 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liablous statements and legal liable are two different things. I thought you were a wordsmith? --Mjformica 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Article

Hi Zora,

The sentence "Nowadays, Ali's legacy of courage and valor lives on with Muslims, naming Pakistan's top military award of courage and valor as 'Medal of the Lion' (Pakistani: Nishan-E-Haider)" is a truth. Muslims concede this. Whether Ali was courageous or not is another story. Of course, Muslims love to praise (and sometimes exaggerate about) their beloveds. I don’t care if this passage is added to the article or not. But be sure that “Pakistan's top military award” is just one simple example. One can show you a huge list of such things. Good night --Aminz 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Nishan-E-Haider may be an exception. But in general what I said is true I think.--Aminz 02:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better to say "Nowadays, Ali's legacy of courage and valor lives on with Muslims" is true :D --Aminz 02:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Quoting Iqbal

Thanks for your concern. I didn't only quote Iqbal, but also Saadi and Al-Busiri to show that a whole mode of poetry exists to praise Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh). The quotations are from a translation of Iqbal's work and is available for research purpose without copyright protection. And its historical text which for quotation purposes don't require copyrights. These books were published in 1920s --Falcon007 04:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how quoting one or two verses make it a copy right voilation, if this is the case then perhaps every history or scholarly work is illegal. We quote people and give references. This is the whole idea of citing references. If this is not the case there wouldn't have been any education at all. --Falcon007 11:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were right. Actually I took your comment that I am determined to quote Iqbal's poetry a little seriously. It is true that I am his fan but this was not my base to quote him. He was unarguably the greatest Muslim poet and philosopher of the 20th centuary and thus was most relevent for the purpose. I will check with Iqbal Academy if his books and the translations could be made available at wikisource. But the problem with this is that what if we quote from wiki source and thing is not there :-) --Falcon007 11:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One could indeed argue that he ISN'T the greatest poet and philosopher. That's your belief, not a fact accepted by all people. Suppose I think that Fazlur Rahman is the greatest philosopher? Zora 12:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, we can't convince people to accept facts. Its freedom of expression. If some one beleives that Canda is in Africa, what can you do about it? He might tell you some interesting geophysical theories about the validity of his arguments. --Falcon007 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think its fuitless to discuss this issue any further. I am hungry let me get some Tandori Chicken. --Falcon007 15:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh by the way, you seem to enjoy reading, this is the poem for today Mosque of Cordova [3]. Its a translation from Bali-i-Jibril. --Falcon007 15:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenIslampedia

Salams/Greetings,

As a member of the Wikipedia community who has contributed to articles related to Islam, I thought you might be interested in a project I am trying to get going: OpenIslampedia. Please visit the site for more information.

While it is permissible to re-use content from Wikipedia (as long as it is cited appropriately and released under their GNU Free Documentation License), it is my hope that we will be able to develop new content for OpenIslampedia, more in accordance to the needs and desires of our community and audience.

Interested? Please consider joining us! As you probably know from working in Wikipedia, every contribution counts, no matter how small.

Ulises Ali Mejias

Imitation is the highest form of flattery

See User:Zora1. Pepsidrinka 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haidar

No problem! I was actually looking for the Austrian politician Jörg Haider when I came accross it, but it looked like it could use some TLC! I've fixed all the inward redirects and added any other Haydars I could find on Wikipedia (no red links though, I guess I could go back and fix that :) I'm not sure that Heydar Aliyev is actually the same name, but someone else can remove him if necessary. As for the shi'as, I deliberately didn't state whether Ali ibn Abi Talib was the first or the forth caliph... but you have at least explained why the page is in Category:Islam. Physchim62 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zora, How are you doing? I have a request. I would be thankful if you allow me to quote your beautiful law somewhere: "There is no belief so pure or so rational that it can't be degraded into utter nonsense by fuggheaded supporters". Thanks --Aminz 06:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you could ask. I really liked the law. THANK YOU SO MUCH. --Aminz 09:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan-e-Haydar

Hi Zora this refers to article Nishan-e-Hayder & Imam Ali.

I edited both pages with text that Nishan-e-Hayder is associated with Imam Ali but it was removed. i dont think so that i have done something wrong or misguided the people. This is fact. Of course with out any doubt Nishan-e-Hayder is assiociated with Imam Ali. T The word 'Hayder' is one of the name of Imam Ali. His mother Fatima binte Asad named him Hayder which means Lion.

I am mentioning two links below for your review.

I am Pakistani National and you can ask any Muslim (Shia/Sunni) group for confirmation.

View the following links:

http://www.pafcombat.com/misc/gallantry-awards.htm http://www.geocities.com/salman4paf/Operational_Awards.html


Please take notice and do the required so that proper definition is made over wikipedia. Zaidi 16:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I haven't given you a barnstar yet

The Editor's Barnstar
So here it is, in recognition of tireless editing, fairness and righteous anger on Islam-related articles. The first I have ever given, by the way ;) Palmiro

Jamshid

apologies for my accidental deletion of the link to Jamshid (musician). It was a copy-paste oversight. Sorry again. - Fullstop 08:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion por favor?

could you please take a look at this mediation case if you get a second? Thanks - Fullstop 08:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bounties

Greetings! You recently helped get the Battle of Badr article featured - thanks! I wanted to make you aware that I have bounties out on several other articles pertinent to Muslim history: Al-Nahda, Akbar, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Mohammed Mossadegh, and, tangentially, Bank of Credit and Commerce International. All these articles are in relatively good condition, but just need a little push to get them featured. A total of $130 is on the line. Are you up for it? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshed page

I agree to your proposed changes to Jamshed page. You can delete the existing info in that page. You should point to Jamshed Town page. Siddiqui 14:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Allah2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Allah2.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Islam

I simply re-instated the template which says that the content of the page is not supported by the references. And it's true. I have made my position very clear on the talk page - the facts reported are simply not verifiable and are very misleading. I hope to address each of your particular points later, and work towards a constructive resolution to the serious problems the article faces. I've already made my initial suggestion on the talk page. In the meantime you have failed to address any of the points I have made about verifiability and POV. I asked you to provide a source for the 103 countries whose Muslim populations the article says are constituted entirely (to the person) of Sunnis. You haven't because you can't. This breaks a fundamental policy of this encyclopedia. I'll also ask, does the lack of a mention a figure for Sunni constitute a fact? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. If the CIA World Factbook says that (just to make up a case) the population of a country is 72% Roman Catholic, 23% various Protestant, and and 3% Jewish, there's no reason to believe that there's some huge population of Hindus that the Factbook is covering up. If it says that the population of Algeria is 99% Sunni Muslim (I just looked this up), then there's no reason to suspect those figures.
That's why I suggested rounding off the figures, so that it's clear that they're exact only to the nearest (whatever) and that groups with less than that (whatever) are going to appear nonexistent. That's why we explicitly have that caveat about the Shi'a being undercounted -- if there are minorities in every country that are too small to appear in the "by country" statistics, overall they might add up to another percentage point. Zora 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Luxenberg

There has been an edit war between CltFn and Garzo here. As I can tell Garzo's version is more accurrate and doesn't needlessly use long quotes from sources that don't say anything profound. If you have time could you look at this and at least weigh in a little on the talk page? Thanks. gren グレン 19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Sovereignty

I'm sorry, but can you enlighten me as to which different individuals governance passed to after the Commitee of Safety? Is there a differnt roll call for the Commitee of Safety, Provisional Government, and Republic of Hawaii? Also, can you tell me why including the fact that the same people that instigated the Bayonet Constitution overthrew the Queen isn't pertinent? If you insist on keeping the current version, I'll have to insist on a complete revision of the paragraph. Jerekrischel insists on detailing the events, I maintain that the events shouldn't be on the page to begin with. Perhaps a rough allusion to the overthrow as under "questionable circumstances" will cure the neutrality issue. Also, since you're claiming that I'm the one with the POV issue, which majority of the islands was discontented with the Monarchy? With the Ku'e petitions that rules out the majority of Hawaiians. The constitution that Liliuokalani was overthrown for wasn't exactly kind to asian rights, which by logic, would exclude the asian majority. So who's left? The europeans? The white settlers? M.ana 02:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a different roll call between the Commitee of Safety (13 members), the Provisional Government (including Dole who was not a part of the Committee of Saftey), and the Republic of Hawaii. The Provisional Government included an advisory council that the Commitee of Safety did not, and the Republic of Hawaii also had changes in positions, roles and people (although Dole remained President). --JereKrischel 03:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, It just seems like you're stretching a point. The basic structure of members did not change in order to justify the phrase "change of hands". In effect, there was no "change of hands", just a gradual change in names to solidify recognition with the US.M.ana 03:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, ok. Do I need to cite NPOV documentation? According to the NPOV rules that assertion is opinion based and should be backed up with credible references. If you fail to cite references, I will push the issue. M.ana 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reference. I'll thank you ahead of time to include it in the context of the text as Mr. Dawes is a controversial author.
While I haven't made up my mind on Mr. Daws, there are others that believe him to be controversial. If you want a specific answer, I'll inquire for you. However, I still think it prudent to cite the source of any adverse views, one way or the other. Case in point, would you mind if I quoted Trask or some other radical and tried to pass it off as fact, all without citing it? BTW, I'm sorry for my edit summary. I wrote it before I saw your reference. M.ana 10:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure

Yeah, I blocked the IP for 48 hours, too. You might want to check his recent contribs, as he made a slough of edits to articles before. I'm fine, except that I apparently managed to spend hours on Wikipedia today, and totally neglected Tacitus. Ugh. Off to bed with me. :) Dmcdevit·t 09:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zora really i do not know how big ur ass is but the term rafidi came more than 100 yrs after the dead if imam Ali so why u lie a big lie like this and salafi themselfs was not able to proof it so be a nice salafi and learn how to play nice ,, regarding nasibi it is the prophet who told that who hate imam Ali is nasibi so shake the ass baby and play nice --217.17.252.126 12:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: main article-ism

Actually, I was willing to work with you all. I was the one that suggested the information on the overthrow be kept to a minimum so as not to stray too far off topic. I've suggested to you and Jere that we keep that portion short of details. However, if you two insist on maintaining the current article, I feel compelled to explain certain nuances. I'm all for a complete revision of the paragraph in question.M.ana 10:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DP

Just a barrage of questions you may or may not be able to answer:

  1. Have you heard anything else about DP updating the old classics which are for now mostly only in ugly text?
  2. How come there are so few Islam-related texts on Gutenberg (and thus so few coming through DP)? Same goes for religion texts.
  3. How can that change?
  4. How come Gutenberg doesn't display edition numbers, ISBN, or LOC # for many of its texts? You can search per LOC section... but not the specific LOC number for the book--that isn't displayed. Some show the edition inside the text itself. (I know you said the older ones didn't do this so much).
  5. Is there a better resource than Gutenberg at the present time? That's more methodic, perhaps, in its organization?

I think that's all? I really should do more with DP since wiki is semi-fruitless but the work you do preserving texts keeps them in a readable format... if not forever, well, at least for the forseeable future. gren グレン 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That dang Michael Hart. The metadata seems pretty important to me. He hasn't struck a compromise in allowing that data but also preserving it in simple ASCII? Apparently not. I might go to the DP boards and try to see what's going on.
I saw something by Edward Sell in P2, that's a good sign. DP-EU has a lot of crazy stuff going on. I have not so eloquently been trying to get some work done on the Lane Lexicon at this thread on their forums. They said "[w]e'll see what will be the easiest way to do this, but we're definitely doing it!" That seems like a good sign but I don't know what they're doing about it... or what I should be doing about it to make them do something about it. I'm quite the newbie when it comes to DP process and think I'd likely only be useful in P1 gruntwork. Which, I don't mind so much.
There are some really great books like Topsy-Turvy Land: Arabia Pictured for Children which has tons of nice old pictures that could be used for Wiki. I want to see more of that kind of thing. If some good Arabic speakers (or at least Arabic script readers) got involved then all of the great old Persian/Arabic/Urdu works could be preserved or, probably more importantly in the short term, accessible. The new html books are actually readable online which is nice... the old ASCII texts are a quite a struggle.
Thanks for the update gren グレン 06:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


That vandal appears to be working from an open proxy which makes it difficult. I checked through his contribs again and I think I got a few more that others didn't get. Just add something to my talk page if you ever seen any more like that and I'll take a look and see if it all merits blocking or reverting or whatnot. Thanks.

I saw a really interesting thread about Google Print harvesting and it linked to a page that linked to Qanoon-e-Islam. That is really neat that they can do projects like that. I am quite a fan. It seems they have a ton of content provided so that looking into things from that end is superfluous unless something is specifically needed. Then again, since I was reading a thread about the weak Islamic output maybe some old books on that are needed. There are only 7 books from LOC category BP! Which is really surprising. gren グレン 07:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article

It'd be something to get on http://english.aljazeera.net/ but http://www.aljazeerah.info/ made me feel special enough :O Hope you didn't mind me using your username (well--I didn't expect he was going to publish it). I have to give him a follow up. He got to Din after Itold him that Deen wasn't proper. However he didn't see Din (Arabic term) which is a lot more than the 13 words he gave us credit for. I won't vouch for their quality though. The only thing I remember about that article was an edit war a while back. It is difficult to try to get my point across. Having that kind of belief to the exclusion of everything else might not be the best thing. He calls Wikipedia "a tool for expediting the clash of civilizations" and he may be right... but, it'd only do that to those who can't take their ideologies cast in doubt. I'm not really sure what would be the ideal encyclopedia to him. gren グレン 08:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Print harvesting is very exciting. My search for full text books between 1200 and 1920 on Islam yields tons of interseting results. Like Zwemer's "Childhood in the Moslem World" since it has nice pictures (although there are some gaps with pages). There is no dirth to the sources for DP now it seems.... which is really cool since some of the formts they're coming in as are almost unreadable. So, they really do need a DP-like process to make them useful e-books. Just rambling--it's kind of exciting since I think having a lot of good stuff in the public domain is nice. Like archive.org having full feature films is a really cool step--I can see some of the classics now even though the copyright extension act means nothing new is coming into the public domain. gren グレン 21:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movies

Out of your list I've seen Kandukondain Kandukondain and Tampopo so far. Both were good but the latter was much more unique to say the least. I should see Chunhyang at some point since it's on DVD at our library. Waiting for Guffman and some of the Ang Lee stuff shouldn't be too hard to find... but, well, despite your recommendations I'm not so sure I know if I want to see some of that. My reasoning being: I saw Best in Show which was a pretty good film... but it was horrible too... the characters were all very creepy in this odd subtle way... which, might have been the point but... I suppose I don't react so well to that type of movie. For Ang Lee Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a great movie and the Hulk was not so great. I don't have much interest in Brokeback Mountain for some reason... I think I may be equating it to Rent which I saw in NYC a few years back. From what I've heard it seems like it's about being gay... which, really doesn't interest me in the least. If there's a reason I should see it tell me and I will at some point and tell you what I think. If not, tell me which of the Ang Lee I haven't seen you'd recommend. None of the others (and I've listed them here btw) seem to be in my library or anywhere that I know. So, I'm not sure how I'll get around to seeing them--but they'll remain on my list. Thanks... as of now you're 2 for 2 :) gren グレン 08:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Babel?

Hi Zora, this question is just out of curiousity since you obviously are an Indian films fan. Do you know any Hindi? DaGizzaChat © 09:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol

"new age woo-woo entrepreneur" =D --Syrthiss 19:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Iran

Please keep an eye on ths Open Tasks template, and make use of it. deeptrivia (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devdas (disambiguation)

Hey. I've been creating movie stub articles for these and I wanted your input. Here is my scheme:

  • Devdas, general page about the story... like Beauty and the Beast is about that story. Not specifically about the novel even though it camse first because I think the movies and the novel together share as all being important... the novel is not the most important of the works. I didn't make the main page a dab page because all of the story lines are similar (or so I hear) and the generalities and impact of Devdas as a whole concept can be discussed.
  • Devdas (novel), specific in depth stuff on novel
  • Devdas (XXXX film), for all of the films.

How does that sound? Or do you think Devdas should be about the novel? I just wanted to check on what you thought. gren グレン 07:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kind of just threw in the info from Devdas to the 2002 version. I will clean it up at some point. I'll take a look at that page right away. gren グレン 07:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I read it and reverted... no source and horribly formatted and it didn't seem to be going in any direction. I also left something on the anon's talk page. I added to the talk page that a notable source is needed in any case. gren グレン 07:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RDB

Hi! I did not make the edits on RDB synopsis.It was an anon user , I just added links (intra-wiki).You can check at the history.Do not jump at conclusion so quickly. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 07:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was a nice coincidence!! Well, do you think you really need to revert the whole edition by the anon?It contained NPoV language.But I think we could have retained poetions , or , at least modified.1 month has passed since the release.The story is known by this time.And now we can add a few more points perhaps! What do you think?--Dwaipayanc 07:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That was what I was proposing. Please start such a section.However, such a section has a potential to grow long.So only reviews from good and professional magazines should be included.We already have links to some reviews in the External links.Choosing some remarks won't pose much problem.--Dwaipayanc 08:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zora! I've become quite accustomed watching you revert the synosis of RDB!! I wonder why everybody wants to give away the story.There has been so many attempts to tell the ending through the synopsis!Thank you for your alert watchfulness.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajputs again

could you pop over to troubled Rajput if you have a moment? I am really not enjoying discussing the article any more, but if we just let it be, things will fall apart again. I do believe it should be easier for admins to keep focus now there is an arbcom decision about the case. dab (ᛏ) 09:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]