User talk:Zora/2006archive6

Zakir Naik

Hey Zora, do you think the article requires semi-protection from anon IPs and new users? Is it getting too difficult to manage? deeptrivia (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess you're right -- it's just about one or two editors. Let me see if there's something I can do that won't add to the chaos. Your reference to Chick comics reminded me of this funny page from a children's coloring book that I saw a few days back. Hopefully they don't publish such things any more. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Barnstar

Hello, Zora, thanks for the Barnstar. :) --Plumcouch 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Results and Thanks

Zora/2006archive6, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Qu'ran' Judeo Christian origin

Modern day philologists view it as an eighth century Arab compilation and adaptation of earlier Judeo-Christian scriptures and traditions, that had spread to Arabia in the Aramaic and Syriac dialects .[1][2].

Luxenberg is not the only one holding that view, I would even advance the notion , that a majority of the Non-islamic, Non apologist academic community ( which I will not list here ) , including philologists and historians subscribe to that view which is supported a great a great deal of hard evidence. I think I read somewhere in a talk page that you were busy reading reading Ibn Warraq's books. If you have read Origins of the Qu'ran or What the Koran Really Says or Quest for the Historical Muhammed, then you will see a fairly large representation of the non muslim near east studies academic community subscribes to that line of research, which echoes all through the modern day western thinkers like Pipes, and Spencer and many others. Furthermore major media like time magazine, newsweek , and the Atlantic have carried articles including cover pages on this view. --CltFn 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link

A good link on bollywood, though the coverage is limited, however has a lot of details on AB if you want to polish your page on him. http://www.3to6.com/final_retro/lamitabh1.htm also has good write up on Madhubala

Haphar 08:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Can you help me please? How can i do inline citations to specific chapters in books? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini

This is the latest point of friction. Your help would be appreciated. Aucaman^Talk 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me

see whats wrong here [[3]] and correct it Mystic 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood articles

Well, if there is a good thing in all of this he made a few stubs that can be cleaned up that other we wouldn't have had the impetus to make. Although, cleaning up film articles that were already established is less fun and less rewarding. gren グレン 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Regarding this edit: Remember, on wikipedia, discuss article content, not other users. It is disruptive to the project as a whole and, in contexts like this, calling another user "Iranian" could quite easily be taken as an attempt to pidgeonhole at best, and a blatant attack at worst. Even if someone else makes a jab at you, simply report them to someone, and do not respond in kind. --InShaneee 21:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing my best to help keep these discussions neutral, but I can only deal with what I see when it happens, which is why I recommend again bringing obvious infractions to myself or another admin when they happen. As for how calling someone "Iranian" could be considered an attack (even when it's true), consider this: suppose I edited a page, and another user reverted it, saying, "This is just the kind of garbage I'd expect from an American editor". Now, I was born, raised, and am currently living in the US, there's no disputing that, but the other hypothetical editor was using that label to make a broad jab at all editors from America, myself included. The simple explination is just that it goes against the policy of discussing content, not editors. So, in the future, no matter what, just keep your cool and take these things up through the proper channels. --InShaneee 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a matter of how you go about things. If they are colluding based on their nationality, well, that's not an inherently bad thing. If this is causing harm to an article, than this is what must be discussed, not neccisarily their reasons (and even if it does get to the point where it's enough of a problem that it must be addressed, the article talk page is not the place to discuss it). I do commiserate with how awkward it feels having to bring every personal attack to an admin's attention (as I was faced with this sort of dilemma a few times before my adminship, and felt the same way), but that is the only thing that can be done. Done enough times, this usually brings about enough admin involvement to resolve the issue, one way or another. It is simply not acceptable for regular users to try to take this type of thing into their own hands. --InShaneee 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you once again to stop making accusations of another user's nationality as you did here, as it is considered to be innapropriate. --InShaneee 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry InShaneee, I must disagree here. I find Zora's comment absolutely unobjectionable. Talking about what one believes to be another editor's motives in preferring one thing or another is, for me, a very legitimate part of dispute resolution. And in the case of the Iranian disputes, it must be painfully obvious to any outside observer that much of the conflict is in fact due to nationally motivated feelings of the kind Zora describes. Zora's comment was to the point and worded civilly. That said, with all due respect for your efforts at remaining neutral and just towards all sides, I'm a bit concerned that your own role - encouraging people to bring ever new complaints about personal behaviour to you and then trying to act as a judge in each case - may be growing to a point where it may cease to be as helpful as it is meant to be. Wikipedia standards of behaviour are not an end in itself but a means for ensuring smoother resolution of disagreements. There may be a point in a heated disagreement where enforcing such standards in an overly strict way may end up heightening ill will on both sides and inflame feelings even more than if you just let people speak their minds as they must. I don't think it's a healthy thing if people are encouraged to take every minor real or perceived instance of aggressiveness as an opportunity to "run to the admins". And it certainly isn't helpful to try to prevent people from calling a spade a spade. Just a thought. --Lukas ^(T.|@) 23:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas is welcome to his opinion, but Zora, my statement remains: if you have a problem with another user's edits, simply discuss what you believe is wrong with them, and perhaps suggest an alternate wording. Making accusations of another user based upon what you believe may be their nationality solves nothing, and is innapropriate. --InShaneee 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to disagree here too. Sometimes we need to understand each other's biases & cultural worldview if we are to work towards an effective compromise and/or resolution of our conflict. Zora can be pretty hardnosed about it at first glance, but although I have been in a bit of a disagreement myself, I find Zora's style to be one which draws out understanding. Sometimes what's wrong with another user's edits is their national/cultural bias - once you understand that bias, you can start working forward. Bridesmill 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above sentiments regarding the assignment of motives or worldview to another; it is, in my view, fundamentally opposed to the spirit of mutual collaboration and cooperation that Wikipedia is built on to focus on the personality, and indeed personal attributes, of Wikipedia contributors; in my view there is never any excuse for ad hominem discussion relating to editors when content is in question. I believe the spirit, albeit not the letter, of Wikipedia:No personal attacks would suggest that personal accusations as a whole should never be made, even if they may be founded in truth. Since article edits must be made to conform to the WP:NPOV policy - a well-entrenched tenet of our community - ultimately individual biases become immaterial as we are all striving towards the common goal of neutral editing. In regard to Lukas' point that it is advisable to allow people in heated disputes to "speak their mind as they must" - Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech, as per WP:NOT, and I could not disagree more. Wikipedia is a place to work on an encyclopaedia, not engage in arguments with those whom one considers to fall under a particular mindset or ethnic origin. I endorse InShaneee's comments above. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases I would agree. When we are talking intercultural conflicts, however, although WP might differ in opinion, the generally accepted practice is to start with defining our respective worldviews, and that includes me saying what I *think* your worldview is. One needs to be civil, but also honest and direct - there is real danger in not understanding the person we are dealing with. I am afraid that in these cases, it is blind adherence to and insincere application of WP:NPA which can be most destructive. We must Assume good faith (even when someone calls me a bigot or whatever). Bridesmill 02:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking over why nationality is important here and it's because ManiF, Kash, Zmmz, and the other editors with whom I'm clashing do not seem to be approaching the topics from an intellectual POV. They revert and just say "That's wrong" or "Goes against consensus", and if they do say anything on the talk page, it's "The Encyclopedia Britannica says it so it's true". You can give them counter-examples and quotes and arguments till you're blue in the face, but they just say, "Experimental" or "Not mainstream" or just ignore you. They are not engaging on any level. It's just brute force. We have more people so we can revert anything you say, so there. You can't even put up a disputed tag because we'll remove it, so there. I think that evidence of a nationalist team IS important here.

I will argue endlessly (!) with someone who argues, and often enough change my views when given relevant evidence, but I can't deal with people who don't discuss, don't compromise, and seem uninterested in any sort of intellectual discourse. The only solution is going to be to insist that they allow more than one view in an article. I would be happy to have their views there (I'm sure they represent a fair number of people) if other views could just be there too. Zora 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although on Wikipedia we may assume good faith, it is likewise the duty of all participants to remain civil and cooperative regardless of the issue being debated or the reason for the debate - especially regardless, I might add, of the ethnic origin of the participants. I see no reason, although we shall assume good faith were humanly possible, that it is necessary Wikipedians should have to simply bear personal attacks without that individual making them being hindered from doing so. Tabulating worldviews is a fair enough goal, but I cannot see how that extends to speculation - nay, accusation - towards an individual being of a particular ethnic background. We are meant to cooperate together; it is a mutualistic requirement that good faith is assumed, yes, but likewise for it to be possible for a good faith editing environment to exist people must not make personal attacks. One cannot have one stipulation without the other, as invariably at least one, or indeed many, participants will feel wounded by the discourse of the dispute. Interpersonal relations, to be blunt, should be left at the door when arriving to edit on Wikipedia, as should be personal biases and opinion. I am not of the school of thought that believes NPOV should be accomplished through integration of multiple worldviews; I believe NPOV is accomplished by its own specific state of balanced thinking, which is the modus operandi of science and respectable academia at large. This cannot be inculcated in an environment where personal issues are levelled, requiring refutation or argument for the sake of mere restoration of face on the part of those who disagree with the accusation. Clearly, such defence could never have a direct bearing on article subject matter, since regardless of who writes it the aim of the article is the same: to present the article in an NPOV manner. And that is why I believe that personal accusations must be treated thus - never made - and that there is no excuse in which they may be made on Wikipedia. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I not say to you "Nicholas, your POV seems very Polish to me - is that why you support X?" because your answer to that question may well help me understand why you have the POV you do, why you think the way you do, and potentially convince me that yeah, maybe this explains your POV and I need to cut you some slack. I agree with you in some ways - BUT its not a B&W world out there. Yes, I shouldn't call you a Pom or whatever, but to politely say "are you a product of public schools?" seems to me a perfectly proper way of figuring out your dialectic. (actually, seems to me in some ways we may be invading Zora's space - shud this be moving elsewhere?) Bridesmill 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it's here. As someone said recently, "Zora, your talk page looks like World War III".

As for introducing someone's nationality being a personal attack -- if there's evidence of a nationalist cadre, why is it wrong to mention it? We have the evidence, in the form of organizing on the noticeboard. How is it wrong for me to call someone an Iranian when he uses "we" when talking about Iranians? That's descriptive! If someone calls me an American, that's not an attack; that's the nationality on my passport. If he says that all Americans are red-necks, that's an attack.

BTW, I'm a heretic anti-nationalist American. Zora 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Zora, do you feel it is possible, and even perhaps appropriate that your “anti-nationalist” ideology [may] naturally spill into some of the disputes, in certain articles, and causes other editors to react/object to it? Like, erasing the nationality of the poet Rumi, and asking others to just call him a “Muslim” instead, because he “simply traveled from one Muslim principality to another”? Don’t you think that in an encyclopedia readers want to know the ethnicity of the historical figures they are reading about? Zmmz 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's relevant. It makes me see all claims to nationality and ethnicity as human creations, and negotiable, rather than completely obvious "givens". However, since I represent a notable POV (see the Nationalism and Ethnicity articles here, as well as the works of Anthony Smith, Ernest Gellner, Anderson, Hobsbawn, Duara, etc.), there's nothing wrong with having that POV expressed too. Too. Also. Not as the truth, but as a POV with the same indeterminate status as other POVs. Zora 03:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zora and Bridesmill: I would say, yes, it is unacceptable to assign people nationalities, or indeed to assume it of any importance in the course of editorial discussion. In reply to Bridesmill above, I do not volunteer information on my educational background, and it is thus none of your concern, as what I volunteer as regards my point of view I have already asserted. The point is that it is not necessary to understand, as you put it, the point of view of an individual; this is because points of view have no place in articles, and indeed should be given limited houseroom in Wikipedia editorial discussions - furthermore, I cannot see how levelling claims of nationality, based on one's own subjective decision, can be of any possible value in the maintenance of a collaborative editing environment. For one, the individual in question may not agree with the ideological or national assigment, and secondly, what business is it of other editors - unless such information is tendered by the user - what their nationality is? As I said, since the guiding principle of editing is to work towards NPOV article content, I see no reason why individual points of view, or indeed biases, should be given any consideration whatsoever. The concept of commenting on content, not the contributor, well established on Wikipedia in the form of WP:NPA; I consider, if I may say so, that the matter is fairly non-negotiable. I, and indeed other administrators, will enforce the concept that accusations of contributor points of view on Wikipedia are unacceptable, if that perhaps makes the matter perfectly clear. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the next time I'm called a "racist" or "anti-Iranian", are you going to do anything about it? The next time my POV is removed, or my dispute tag, are you going to do anything about it? Do I have to run whining to the admins every time something like this happens (which I hate doing) or are we going to see some pro-active policing? Zora 03:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reason most of the squables on WP are intercultural in nature is because there exists at the foundation level a lack of understanding and experience in dealing with intercultural conflicts appropriately? This idea that we just won't mention who we are and what we believe and wish away our differences is to put it mildly 'bizarre'. Yes, one needs to be civil, but we also need to understand where we come from - and that implies speaking and discussing our differences. It also means admitting where we did (or did not) learn certain 'truths' or 'values'. Hiding behind a cloak which assumes absolute equality and identical understanding is dangerous, and feeds both the lowest common denominator, the biggest bully in the schoolyeard, and every intercultural conflict you can imagine. Bridesmill 18:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only piece on WP:NPA that addresses everything this argument hangs on is "Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets {forbidden}" I don't see how that precludes discussion of variance in world view when politely and diplomatically done in good faithBridesmill 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit or not, that's how the policy is, hence why both of you are being told that now. --InShaneee 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you telling me that an 'unwritten' policy exists which is different from WP:NPA? Now I am confused.Bridesmill 04:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm telling you it is written there. Just like the US Constitution, most of what it says is made up of how it's interprited, not just what's spelled out, hence why I am telling BOTH of you how your actions are and will be interprited. I know you don't like it, but arguing won't change that. --InShaneee 13:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it might. InShaneee, you're not the WP Supreme Court and the final authority on what WP:NPA means. The text of the policy says no racial or ethnic epithets. I fail to see that the words "American" or "Iranian" constitute epithets. If they were epithets, they wouldn't be found in so many articles -- including the title of one of the articles in turmoil. I understand that you're working from the best of motives, that you want to quell the struggles erupting across a range of articles, and that in order to be impartial, you feel you have to be firm with everyone. However, per Bridesmill, I don't think that squelching discussion of the POVs that are driving the dispute helps solve it. Zora 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But I'm telling you, again, that is how I've interprited the rule, as well as several other admins I've asked to comment on it, and, if that's not clear enough, I'll just say that you will be blocked if you continue to discuss other users in such a manner. --InShaneee 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am intrigued in how you can interpret 'no racist or national eptithets' to mean I can't ask you why you are intent in pushing the Grokian perspective - now If I said "All you Grokheads" or even "all you sprut-sucking Grokians are the same", obviously that falls into national epithets territory. But the former? I would be curious to understand both what logic allows yourself to interpret NPA as asking me if I have a pro-Canadian agenda is an 'epithet', and whether any of this is actually grounded in real-world intercultural experience, and if so, what reference you have which supports your interesting POV from an intercultural or conflict studies perspective. The other thing which bothers me very much about this is that you imply you would block users engaged in exploring their mutual world-views even if they where doing so in a mutual fashion; or that you would do so only with certain POVs. Bridesmill 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:InShaneee

This user blocked me for 24 hrs for my comment here. As you can see User:SouthernComfort was using some provocative language telling me to "review WP:CIVIL" for an edit I had made. I responded saying I wouldn't respond to his "trolling" (which I thought meant "provocative comments") and I was blocked for it.

Since then he's been threatening me with more blocks due to clear errors (the comment he's referring to on my talk page was not written by me - I was simply replacing it after someone took out). He has also blocked User:Xebat for 1 month for calling him a child. I'm about to go ahead and set up an RfC on his conduct and blocking behavior. Would you care to tell me what he has done to you? Aucaman^Talk 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help requested

Zora,

Someone came in and merged Sialk (the name of a place) with the Protoelamite article (name of a dynasty or group of ancient people). Obviously theyre not the same thing.

And he did it without even discussing, so far as I know.

Could you please help reverse that change? At least it could have been voted on before anything. I'm not sure how to undo such changes.

Thanx.--Zereshk 23:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it needs to be re-written. That's just way too drastic of a change. It only has one section to begin with anyway (A ziggurat that is here, is that old, and was built by so and so). Nothing fancy and elaborate like your Islamic conquest article.

It's just that in its present format, at worst, it's factually incorrect, and at best, it's misleading because Sialk was also inhabited later on after the proto-elamites.

It's not life threateningly important anyway. I'll wait for his reply and see what he has to say.--Zereshk 00:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the info from the site you refer to. It's fine with me. However I think we shouldnt throw out the Ghirshman info either. Ghirshman is the only westerner to have studied the structure in detail for a long period of time. No other westerner has done a similar study. I am even willing to bet that the info on that webpage you refer to is actually extracted from Ghirshman's studies. Seriously.

But that aside, I dont understand why youre so adamant in erasing everything about Ghirshman. What is it about him that irritates you? As far as I can see, there is nothing on the Sialk page that even hints at Persian nationalism. Please please please...dont go around erasing material. If Ghirshman was not a credible source, he wouldnt be referenced 87 times (and Im not exaggerating, I actually did a count) in Pott's book on Elam. Let us not judge what is correct for others to read and what is not. Let us just report what is there in the literature.--Zereshk 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdol Samad Sufi monastary

That may very well be. And he wasnt alone on this. Almost every other archeologist that excavated Iran did the same. Thats why we had almost every tablet excavated at Persepolis show up at U-Chicago, and every artifact from Susa at Louvre. Entire sites were emptied. When I visited this Sufi monastary in Natanz last summer, for example, I found the interior almost completely bare. I asked my ICHO guide why. He said it had all been emptied by some French expedition, in the Qajar era. The tiles, the ornaments. They had even taken out the original wooden handcrafted doors.

But Ghirshman's sweeping style of archeology doesnt negate the conclusions he made, does it? That's why he's mentioned as reference in every major work and publication on the Elamites. In the Sialk article, there really is nothing specified about what he thinks about Sialk. Nothing mentioned there is from him. The three platforms, well, you can easily see and count them as you stand on top of the structure and look down. The article only says he was there and did so and so.

I dont think this article is that important. Once we separate the proto-elamite material back into its own article, youll see that there is actually not much in the article to talk about. You can even help me expand it.--Zereshk 22:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that being said, the Sialk article mentions nothing about what Ghirshman thinks about Sialk anyway. I moved back the article to its proper title, and deleted out the irrelevant parts (which Im sure you would agree to) as well.--Zereshk 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you?

Hey Zora,

How are you doing? I apologize if I have not acted with civility toward you in our discussion on the talk page of Muhammad. I promise to start/help on the page [Islamic views of Muhammad's nature and character] as soon as I get rid of my midterms. There is an prayer attributed to 11th(10? 9?) Imam of Shia which I think explains it well; I can not remember the exact name. Dua Nudbah, I remember also provides some details: [4] Take care --Aminz 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hapa

Hi Zora. Yeah, the external links section there is a bit of a mess. I'm really don't know much about the subject, and I don't presently have the patience to sort them all out. I'll happily defer to anyone else who wants to keep or remove any of those links. For now, I'll go ahead and move the lot of them to the Talk page, maybe keeping the Realhapas site per your recommendation. --Alan Au 07:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, short on time, I'll revert for now. --Alan Au 07:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

You are a wahhabi spy. 65.206.41.240 00:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are wahhabi?!?! Be with Shia. Lkjmn 05:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop 2

And you are a Canadian! Stop immediately with your pro-Canuck views!! I just wanted you to have another racial epithet for the collection. Cheers. -- Samir (the scope) 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, socialized medicine is part of the slur! -- Samir (the scope) 06:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fundamentalism

I thought you opposed fundamentalism. Why are you helping these people who are trying to say that all Muslims must be Islamists? No confrontation intended, just curious. And I hope I didn’t anger you the other night - rest assured, if someone else had gone after your contributions (as they proved to be), I would have challenged them likewise. I am so exasperated with the iconoclasts. p.s. this user had earlier made a fuss about me eliminating the obnoxious frame around one of his/her comments, claiming space without allowing any.Timothy Usher 10:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assumed your comment about breaking up previous discussion posts to refer to the talk:Islamism page.Timothy Usher 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthians

On a totally unrelated note, do you see any similarities between the teachings of Buddha and St.Paul's letter to the Corinthians? Never would have considered it myself, but last year I had a religious experience of sorts, opened my bible to this book - I'd always disparaged St.Paul on theological grounds, as per the Islamic critique, but for some reason my heart was open and I saw something I'd never noticed, something so obvious...Timothy Usher 11:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of letting go of the self, of love, and how these relate to one another. And, how attachment to one's desires is the cause of suffering. Not that the message is precisely the same, and I am glad it is not because we'd have only one source of wisdom. But, closer than what I'd seen previously.Timothy Usher 00:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khaybar

Zora every single day i write the story of the Battle of Khaybar but these two (Timothy Usher and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg)keep on deleting my stuff. I think that they are playing around with the Islamic war aticles. I don't know what the really want, why don't you try editing the article, ok! user:Salman01

Victorian fashion

Thanks for your comments re: Victorian fashion. I actually have a rather selective and completely impractical interest in fashion history. I have some stuff off Wikipedia at http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pembfun/victcfsh.html and http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/ppbrokil.html , etc., but adapting it to Wikipedia has proved to be surprisingly slow and painful. Churchh 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shi`ah

I tried to bring it up on the talk page and got no response. Cuñado - Talk 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reed

Hi Zora,

I was referred to you by User:Dmcdevit, whom I asked about Reed, where I am thinking of applying. He said here that going to Reed was "the best possible decision [he] could have made." I thought I'd ask you for your opinion, if you're not too busy.

Was the reputation for "extreme academic workload, a sink-or-swim social ethic, and a reputation for heavy recreational drug use" (Reed College) accurate when you were there? I don't mind a "reputation as politically left-wing," but were other viewpoints encouraged and welcomed? How did you get your parents to let you go to such a crazy place? And did you switch from Reed to Berkeley, or vice versa, and why?

Thanks, TheJabberwock 04:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kakashix3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalising your userspace recently, creating User:Zora/2004archive among other things. I removed your signature from User talk:Kakashix3 after he changed your message. TheJabberwock 16:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lanai

Just wanted to inform you that an anonymous user made some very strange edits to Lanai. If you ever some free time, could you take a look? See the section "64.75.209.2's edits, from February 4, 2006" on Talk:Lanai. The edits were originally reverted by CambridgeBayWeather but PseudoSudo restored them in good faith. —Viriditas | Talk 10:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's Marriages

Hi Zora, thanks for your comments. Yes I was quite sure that sex (even for pure pleasure, as opposed to procreation) within marriage is highly encouraged by Islam. Thanks for the reaffirmation. Nazli 17:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

j'accuse

you of being unCanadian! if you were canadian, you would make a point of using the word colour in your work, and you would compromise quickly and for no really good reason, rather than continue to effectively & passionately debate. (with best of respect - just seems as if you need more for your collection ;-))Bridesmill 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic views of Muhammad

Zora, I made a draft for the article Islamic views of Muhammad. I will work on it more whenever I can. thx. --Aminz 04:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saris

Zora, to add to your research on dance costumes: here is an authentic "fish-tail" sari wrap, of the non-exhibitionist variety. Now for how it is draped: a 9-yard sari is wrapped normally, with the usual pleating in front. After this, it is wrapped one more time around the body such that the lower border is at a much higher level, just below the hips (this step is sometimes omitted). Given its length, the loose end of the sari will be exceptionally long despite this extra turn (more than a yard longer than usual). This end is put over the left shoulder. It is then passed under the right arm, and tucked into the front portion, at the navel, such that about a yard length of sari, at the very end, falls loose from the navel towards the knees. This constitutes the "fishtail", which is artistically pleated (bunched up) before being tucked in. A waistband covering the top part of these wrappings is a standard accoutrement for a dancer giving a formal performance.

There is no chance of any woman appearing on stage with busom covered only in a tight blouse. Being photographed thus is a hallmark of unseemly exhibitionism, of which the snaps on this website are good examples. Many of these snaps, being explicitly released by the artiste under General license (suspiciously echoing WP's own language) have, alas, found their way into many WP articles. There is a discussion on the page on Bharatanatyam talk-page about the notability of this artiste, and I for one think that the sari page should replace the present image with this.

Many modern dancers use a stitched-up costume which resembles a sari, but is not, since it is stithed. This is worn like pyjamas, and tightened around the waist with drawstrings. In such cases, the "fishtail" consists of an entirely separate piece of cloth, and the edges of this fishtail are stitched on to the legs of the pyjama. I should imagine this is the kind of costume the dancer at your Odissi recital wore; here is a nice example, and here is, well, another.

Anyway, the idea that a fishtail wrap precludes draping over the shoulder is wrong. Only two styles are known to ever have neglected to cover the busom with an end of the single cloth. Of these styles, one is nameless and something like a millenium out of date. The other, being the Mundu, survived until half a century ago.

What was the point again?? A call for good taste, I think. Anyway, this is for your information. Regards, ImpuMozhi 04:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again

My point is that "Choli" is not an English word (maybe it will become one with your efforts, but not just yet). When one is so rightly punctilious is giving due space to regional variations, I don't see why a Hindi word should be given such insistant prominence, especially when its use across India, despite bollywood, is not overwhelming. In this edit, someone had rightly said the word is "north Indian" and you changed that to imply that that word is used "in India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh..." and it is not in fact used even in south India, leave alone SL or B'desh. Indian English and British spellings are used in all India-related articles, and the meaning of "blouse" is the same in SL/BD as in India, so there is no reason not to use it. You could specify the midriff-baring part if you think it confuses non-subcontinental other readers, but the "backless" is so occasional (except in bollywood) that even the "sometimes" formulation would be an overstatement.

I don't know why the shoulder-covering point is important, except if you want to retain the dubious fish-tail photograph, since I have no complaint with the written text. Come, is that image intended to illustrate a 13th century drape?? If so, it is inaccurate, not only for being a photograph but also for featuring a stitched blouse of any kind. Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic characters

I'm glad you found those characters [ʾ ʿ], I've also seen them used in media. There is a dilemma in figuring out what to use, and it goes like this: people like you are out there. (I meant that in the nicest way). If we set up a standard transliteration, as defined in the MOS, it needs to be very easy to use, so if it's not on the keyboard nobody will use it and they will argue a lot when we try to standardize things. Essentially, we could use those half circles as the standard casual way of writing, but that means we would have to change every page on wikipedia, and just wait till you try to standardize a page run by Persians... "We don't speak Arabic!!!!" (shaking my head in disgust). So the apostrophe needs to be used as the most casual standard, and the backtick [`] is the only other character on the keyboard.

The other place we can use the half circles is in the strict transliteration, which is only used once in the opening paragraph. Well, almost all printed material use the characters that look like commas [‘ ’], likewise do a lot of online media sources.

Basically, I would like to improve things, but I've resigned myself to only fixing up the strict transliterations in the beginning of each article. There are too many people who don't understand, and will fight to the death over changing things. You're a good example of that. Cuñado - Talk 04:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ethnicity

When did I say ethnicity is the same as race? You guys brought race into the argument long before when you started talking about genetics. Saying Kurds are not Iranian people since they are genetically mixed!! (As if genetics has anything to do with it) So remind yourself and your friends that ethnicity is not the same as race. Question still remains if your claim about Italians and Russians(that there is no typical Russian or Italian) is true and significant, how is it that no article mentions that? why should it be mentioned about Persians when other groups dont mention it? are we mixed while they have stayed pure? Gol 01:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and Possible POV

Zora, I’m sorry to do this, but I feel it is more appropriate to address the issue in your talk page, rather than in a discussion page of an article. Please review the Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies. You may have a pre-meditated pro or against agenda before you even edit an article, which is fine, and perhaps admirable, yet, it is highly inappropriate to edit an encyclopedia like this; your concerns may be described better in a newspaper essay, in Wikimedia, or even in a newly started sub-articles relating to the main articles you dispute, explaining the various hypothesis that may exist about certain subjects. It is [not] the job of an encyclopedia to report all sides of the matter, rather to report things as they are, relevant, and as factual as our archeological, literature, and other data may allow us to be. Unfortunately, due to your “anti-nationalist” ideology, it is at [best] plausible to assume, and frankly fair to dismiss [some] of the multiple disputes you put forth, in order to indicate there is no such thing as a “Persian culture”, or even “Persian people” per se. The below statements by you need attention,

• Your “anti-nationalist” ideology[5]
• Trying to erase the Persian ethnicity of Rumi, stating We should call him a Muslim instead, since he simply traveled from one Muslim principality to another. I thought it was highly inappropriate to do that in an encylopedia, which is an academic source.
• In an article called Khuzestan, you many times trying to erase the fact that the early Persian settlers there, who eventually formed a nation, actually did not settle there, and rather they were meglomanic warriors who captured that area by force, which is against all academic sources that I know of[6]
• “The Iranians are just as scary as the Hindutva folk”[7].
• Zmmz is one of a posse of Iranian nationalist editors who have been extremely active lately...[8]
• “Just stay calm and give Dariush enough rope to hang himself”[9].
• Persians like to say, “We are the biggest and the best, huzzah for us!”[10]
• “The article, however, is using the term "Iranian peoples" for ill-defined contemporary groups who speak a language related to modern Persian. However, no evidence is given that any of them define themselves as "Iranian peoples". So who is applying the label?”[11]

And, you have constantly tried to dismiss any sources that support some arguments about Persia or Persian as a culture,

• “Cogent argument, that :) Ah, a little more googling suggests that the source for all of this is CAIS, Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies, which is apparently a group of Iranian diaspora academics, no longer connected to the University of London, with explicitly nationalist aims”[12]
• You have discredited one of the foremost renowned scholars in ancient Near East history, namely Sir Richard Nelson Frye Prof. Emiretus of Harvard U---because apparently you were offended by his views, stating, All I heard was “Persians good Arabs bad”. You dismiss his views by indicating, “That's a man who's 79 years old and resting on his laurels. Vast upheavals in academia have escaped his notice”, and indicate he is “anti-Arab”, and “old-fashioned”[13]. You wrote a statement in the discussion page of Richard Nelson Frye article, yet, within minutes, without giving anyone else a chance to respond, you went ahead and erased practically the entire article, containing the Professor’s quotes that represent his views. You have done that in many articles Zora.

I hope you realize that, there is a problem, and these statements [are] cause for concern.Zmmz 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Why cap shari'a?

I've just seen it capitalized in ever source I've come across it. —Aiden 02:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV forks?

Zora, I'd like your opinion on this: would you consider articles like Ibrahim, Musa and Isa POV forks from Abraham, Moses and Jesus? There are also more debatable ones such as Islamic concept of God and Allah vs. God, but the first two cases seem particularly strong. We all agree that the very same people are being discussed.

Merging them would provoke a floor fight to be sure, but then that's exactly why POV forks arise. What we have is a network of interconnected articles from one point of view, and there's always a question of which link to give.

Further, these are English-language pages. Do articles with Arabic titles have any place where there is already a well-known English term and associated article?

It would seem the goal of this is to create a halal WP attracting like-minded editors and intended for like-minded or "questioning" readers. Perhaps I'm overreacting? Read the articles if you have the chance and are so inclned, and let me what you think.Timothy Usher 04:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For he same reason Brontosaurus is a different article to Apatosaurus, Isa is a different article to Jesus and Allah is is a different article to God. They're not merely translations; they are distinct cultural phenomena (ie. have necessarily different POVs), and need a separate treatment. — JEREMY 04:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apatosaurus is a type of Brontosaurus. Is Isa a type of Jesus, etc.?Timothy Usher 04:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Brontosaurus is a mis-identified Apatosaurus with a huge amount of cultural baggage attached. Isa is indeed "a type" of Jesus (ie. a well-established variant identification or interpretation backed by considerable cultural baggage). In fact, there is more of a case to be made for separating purely cultural phenomena like "God" and "Allah" than there is for separating variant views of actual things, like dinosaurs. — JEREMY 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is Jesus primarily a cultural phenomenon. He was a specific individual for whom the historical record is woefully incomplete and occasionally contradictory, and therefore people disagree about the specifics. For example, was he crucified, or was that mere illusion? We have a number of people who say he was, then centuries later, someone says he wasn't based solely on appeal to divine revelation. Believe one or the other, but we definitely don't have one who was and one who wasn't.Timothy Usher 04:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah; I see where you're coming from now. You want "The Truth" about Jesus, God etc. to be the only thing one can read in wikipedia. I'm afraid you misunderstand the nature of an encyclopedia. This is not a dictionary or a physics textbook. We are here to present a factual study of the vast panoply of knowledge and belief around the world. I think you're looking for one of these. — JEREMY 04:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

these - you're off-key. I'm far more skeptical than that. That Jesus was crucified should be the easy part. That he walked out of his grave a couple days later...let's just say I wasn't there.Timothy Usher 05:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I see you BOTH as insisting on presenting a religious-influenced view of the truth in WP. Not that I think I'm immune -- I have a Zen view of things :) As to the whole parallel Halalpedia aspect -- I have stayed away from that and perhaps I shouldn't have. I can't judge without looking at those articles. At the very least the Jesus/Isa articles should be linked. I'm not sure about merging. Zora 04:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why you believe that my "view of the truth" is "religious-influenced"; I can assure you that is not the case. However, this jaundiced perspective does go some way to explaining your wholesale disregard for my attempts to improve the Muhammad article. Please try to see past your biases and assume good faith. Your attachment to the current text — not to mention Timothy's apparent deference — is beginning to smack of WP:OWN. — JEREMY 06:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "founder" thing

Hi Zora. I'm having a tough time figuring out exactly what you mean by "pure preaching" in the following:

Muslims see Islam (literally "submission [to God]") as fundamental to all divinely inspired religions, and believe it was taught by biblical figures from Adam to Jesus. As such, they reject the idea that Muhammad "founded" Islam.

Perhaps you could explain to me which bits you find most POV, and I can try some alternate wordings. — JEREMY 04:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajith and Rani Mukerji

Hello there Zora. You seem pretty vigilant with stopping Bollywood fanmail. Could you please have a look at Ajith. It is absolutely dreadful. I have tried to rewrite for tonality, but some of the claims still seem, frankly ridiculous. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

Since you left invaluable comments on this article at a previous peer review stage, perhaps you would be so kind to give some more input now that it is a FAC? Thanks in advance--ppm 03:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sakina binte Imam Hussain

Zora since I don't know much about how to structure an article in wikipedia, I need your help! I wrote an article on the daughter (Sakina binte Imam Hussain) of Imam Hussain AS. But I want someone to look through it and make some necessary changes and structure it nicely. Thanks You!

amit_jain_online^(t a l k)

Thanx Zora for the appreciation-- 4:15 GMT+5:30, April 14, 2006 amit_jain_online^(t a l k)

Your prose

This is so beautiful:

“....their Islam sat so lightly on them...

And this so stark and logical:

“It would be unrealistic to believe that these tribes were Muslim in anything but name.”

I love your prose. And your fairness. But mostly your prose.Timothy Usher 11:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aisha

Comments like this are condecending and unneccisary. If you don't agree with Zmmz's comment, then either say that and explain why, or don't respond to it at all. There's no need to imply that he's not doing anything useful. --InShaneee 22:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhollah Khomeini

Hi, Zora, frankly, I can hardly see any point in continuing to discuss this issue with ManiF any further. We are supposed to assume good faith, but it's getting ever more difficult to do so, especially after I've had enough of it on Talk:Persian Jews. Pecher ^Talk 09:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad article insanity

Look at what's been done. Active sentences back to awkward passives, pious nonsense about prophecies, mystical exercises in translation...Muhammad ate (Arabic XXXX) some food (Arabic XXXX) while sitting

on a chair (Arabic XXXX).  No explanation necessary, as there were two of them and only one of me.  This is madness, I tell you.  If it's remotely encyclopedic or remotely neutral, that's exactly the problem.  What is needed - and as a believer, and hardly the ACLU type, I hate to say this - but what is needed is a WP:SECULAR.Timothy Usher 11:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And JGB has taken this opportunity (he and Aminz tag-teaming me) to restore the hideous "founder text". God curse the day and the moment I thought of this.Timothy Usher 13:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis aka Removing role information

Hello, Zora, I'm not sure if we have a problem somehow, but a user, Mel Etitis starts to remove not only role information from the actors/actresses, but also from the movies (Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge has currently cast information, but no role information). I'm not sure if this is helpful, since information is lost - and it could be confusing, because if there's no role information and a very popular star like Shahrukh Khan has a cameo appearance (like in Saathiya) you may wonder what his function is in the movie (is he the star, is it a cameo, an extended cameo). Kajol has a blink-and-gone-appearance in duplicate. If every information about her role is lost, one might mistake her as one of the movie's stars - and you can't look it up on IMDb, because sometimes, these things aren't listed. Am I overreacting (and over-protective)? I just think: it's Bollywood and they have more movies, more cameos and less coverage on the Internet than Hollywood - so maybe at least Wiki should try to have all the information. Opinions Regards, --Plumcouch 18:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sakina bint Hussain

Zora so you are trying to say that according to your information and knowledge, Imam Hussain did not have a daughter named Sakina bint Hussain (AKA Bibi Ruqeya). Then who's grave is inside the Court + Palace of Yazeed I. Can you answer some of my questions please so i can really know, the way you think about my articles. Are you Muslim? and Are you Sunni or Shia? Thank You! Salman

Eeek! if you read the discussion between myself & salman on our talk pages - a lot of the issue was over the use of the word 'killed' versus 'martyred' - I like what you did with the article except for that piece, which Salman & I had come to agreement on (i hope) so that we don't get back into a 'martyr/kill' revert war. If you don't mind I'm going to try & tweak that little bit back.Bridesmill 23:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Oops and can you provide the full ref for Momen? I know someone is going to say 'who the dickens is that? ;-) thanks Bridesmill 23:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry

Zora i am sorry about the deletion, but i want to keep my talk page as small as possible. I won't delete anything from my talk page now because what u said about the talk page is totally right. And about the article of Bibi Sakina bint Hussain, i am going to try my best to divide the article in different sections, as much as possible. Okay but since i am new to wikipedia i don't know much about how to do things the right way, but i am going to try my best. Thank You! Salman

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence

Keep your comments civil here. The Arbcom has agreed that this case has merit, so yes, Zmmz's diffs also have merit then. An Arbcom case is no excuse to disrespect another editor. No, you don't have to answer his claims. If you'd like, the Arbcom will rule without your defense. Otherwise, be respectful, regardless of the circumstances, to other users and to the process. --InShaneee 03:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mosque

I took a look at mosque -- it's shaping up nicely. Some links to articles on architecture might help -- is there an article on Islam and architecture? -- and perhaps some notice taken of Saudi subsidies for new mosques and their controversial stand against any form of decoration. Saudi-designed mosques might as well be warehouses, IMHO. I don't have time to do any of this, but you might enjoy looking for materials. Zora 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to deal with the objections on the article's FAC first. You seem to be a little more familiar with the situation than me, so you probably would be more able to write a section on mosques in Saudi Arabia. joturner 04:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thank you

Zora, don't worry! I have already lost the strength of faith! To be honest, I should say I have not yet found any religion that makes me feel comfortable. Judaism and Islam both in certain situations have the elements of violence(To be fair there ARE many precious things there). Christianity does not seem to have the elements of violence, as long as New Testament is concerned but they believe in the Hebrew bible anyway. My problem with Christianity is Trinity and some other passages (see my edits to criticism of Christianity). All in all, I sometimes think maybe I should abandon everything. If there is a hell, I am doomed to be there. Anyway, Why don't you become an admin? If you decided to candidate yourself, please let me know to give you a strong support. --Aminz 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zora for your warm words. Thank you for your the information about Zen. I didn't know someone can practice Zen and be a christian or Muslims as well. I expect it should be a new world to me. I visited Lex Hixon's website. It talks about a unity between all religions. As you said, it seems to be close to Sufism. I have partial knowledge about Sufism. Rumi is a famous Sufi and his poems are widely read in Iran. Is this sense of unity between all religions a sort of "existentialist" philosophy or a humble attitude as I understand from the following Rumi's verse?

What is to be done, O Muslims? for I do not recognize myself.

I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Magian, nor Muslim.

I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea;

I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling heaven.

I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire;

I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of entity.

I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulgaria, nor of Saqsin

I am not of the kingdom of 'Iraqian, nor of the country of Khorasan

I am not of the this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of Hell

I am not of Adam, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan.

My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless

Is this sense of unity what Zen talks about. I think I can find my answers in the zen article Thanks for the name of the book. I’ll put in my “to read list”. Zora, why don’t you become and admin? --Aminz 08:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, you are right. Reading about something is like painted cake. At the moment, I want to forget about everything for awhile and relax. I think Zen should have a different flavor than Abrahamic religions. Thank you again. --Aminz 09:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

1. Do you "collaborate" on every edit you make? Your bad-tempered accusation makes no sense.
2. Demanding that the majority should change to fit the minority would be "collaborative"?
3. The cast list was lifted, unaltered, from IMDb, including formatting. That's not a good idea with regard to the copyright position; I've raised this point at the Project Talk page.
4. Most film article don't give the character names; they're pretty meaningless to anyone who hasn't seen the film, and they're available at IMDb if people really want to know that so-and-so played "person in the street" or "Meena".
5. In so far as you have a point, it's vitiated by your aggressive and confrontational approach. Try calming down, discussing it "collaboratively", and let's see what happens. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zora and Mel... Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Cast... which says that we should have the major-ish characters listedn. I would recommend that some consensus be had on the film project and all over that we figure this out before we go on a changing raid.

In fact, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Cast -- if you care to comment... not sure where else we'll work this out. gren グレン 10:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Input in Western fashion

Zora, in Talk:History of Western fashion I've asked for comments on selecting a single wiki style for our "style galleries". I'd love your opinion on this since you're an experienced editor who knows a lot about clothing. - PKM 17:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ZORA

What was wrong with the changes i made to Imam Hussain's article? The information was basically the same i did not add in anything from the point of view of the shi'as. I just made some Grammar corrections and corrected the way some names were spelled.

How about this i will change the spelling of Imam Hussain to Husayn, okay. And i will even take out Imam from Imam Hussain's name from the article. But i can not take out martyr because each and every single person that i know muslim or non-muslim believes that Imam hussain was, is, and will, be remembered as a martyr. Its even in some of the books mulsims and non-muslims wrote.

Zora i have changed the article the way u wanted no Imam in front of Imam Hussain's name and the way u want the name of Imam Hussain to me spelled. I hope you are noting going to have any problems with the way the article is right now!

Thank you for the information Zora. But that other user keeps on deleting the information without first dicussing it on the talk page. I told him that if he wants to make any changes, then it is fine but first he is going to have to discuss it on the talk page. Thank You Salman

Is it possible to rename my username

Hi Zora is it possible to rename my account name? without having to compromise my edit history, talk pages and all my contribution ? Mystic 18:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply..Mystic 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Couldn't help noticing it (this is none of my business!!!) I guess your heading for lots of trouble with the Indian folks.. Just in case you didn't know if you meet five folks in this planet one of them is an Indian, so tread carefully.. :-)

Cabal against you

Hi Zora, i've have been getting quite a few emails from Iranians and Indians about your "racist" views. I well know your opinion about religious nationalisms prticularly the Hindutva and Iranian nationalism. Let me first say though i do appreciate your ENORMOUS contributions to Indian articles i must say please desist from pushing pushing POV (particularly blatantly leftist POV) in articles and also through your comments. Truth is not black and white, all Hindutva idelogy is not entirely evil nor are Congress and Indian left angels of virtue. Only difference being that while BJP doesnt claim to be secular Congress gives it a lip service and denegerates the term to populist minoritism. You ofcourse are entitled to your views but i just dont want another confrontation here.

An example of emails i am getting:

From: xxxx <[e-mail]> Mailed-By: wikimedia.org To: AMbroodEY <ambrood_at_gmail.com> Date: 16-Apr-2006 21:34 Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

This comment by zora is very inappropriate. Please help me police her edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=43274674&oldid=43273289%20racist%20comment File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's Garb

Thanks Zora, for the clarification on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, that's about what I figured he was wearing (or something equivalent). Netscott

Please move...

"Ali ibn Hussayn" to "Ali ibn Husayn" ScottRR 13:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words fail me

Re. thy misbehaviour: Words fail me. I'm amazed to find thee revealed to be that vilest of wikicreatures, a detractor of truth, a disruptor of reason, a reverter of valid, verified words, in short, an edit warrior! Thou art surely a disgrace for this noble enterprise, thou, thou, - what epithet can express this properly? - thou Visigoth! For I thou thee, thou traitor. Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, what are these people doing to you, and why?Timothy Usher 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime tonight, I'll try to see what I can put together on your behalf.Timothy Usher 00:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may soon have my own ugly arbcom case: WP:ANI, User talk:El C.Timothy Usher 00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! On the latest cleanup, the lame "User:Timothy Usher" section was dropped! So there is some reason occuring. Looking through the Aucaman case, I'm amazed at how much work has been put into this. I realize that I can't just drop in and offer a comment. Unless I'm missing something (?), the only page I've seen you on that's been mentioned is Muhammad, and their "exhibit" consisted of the page history rather than any particular diff.

Though relatively new here, this strikes me as a whole lot of nothing, and that it will be seen as such by any fair-minded judge. It boils down to, we accuse you of having a POV which we don't like. There's no allegation of misconduct beyond "edit warring", which takes two if I'm not mistaken.Timothy Usher 08:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the stupidest charge I've ever heard. How is "edit warring" different than any other disputed edit? Alternately, why allow even one revert? At least we'd know what the rules are.

How many judges need to agree for you to be convicted? What will happen if you are? Most crucially, how can they turn a case against Aucaman into a case against you? Is it completely open-ended? I realize you may not have time to answer. I can only say, if wikipedia disciplines you after the demands of a bunch of hotheaded ideologues, it's all downhill from here.Timothy Usher 09:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi+, thanks for your concern. From what I've seen, I don't think there's any great danger. One arbitrator, probably on cursory investigation of Zmmz' "evidence", wrote that "finding of fact" statement, another agreed. That was before we all put in our defending evidence, and the arbs haven't yet responded to that. As of now, the "finding of fact" statement isn't even accompanied with any "proposed remedy" against Zora, so no concrete sanctions have even been considered. If that should happen, they'd need six votes, I think. Don't worry. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhina

Agree w/ you re. Shekhina=wisdom - the Shekhina article looks a bit of a mess, w/ typical anon & 'western Kaballa' POV - I have some refs @ home, will do some work.Bridesmill 16:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly percolated Esperanza blend coffee, just for you!

Looks like you could use one; have a zen moment ;-) Bridesmill 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help!!

Hi can you please help me out with the correct licensing tag, i have uploaded a Image of Saeed Jaffrey but it says with that licensing tag, it must be referred to a senior editor.

Thanks - Neon 08:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for replying... i've added a promo license to it. thanks anyways Neon 10:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel

Pecher has blanket reverted my additions to Infidel complaining that they were "illiterate and unsourced edits"[14]. However, while they were well sourced via the external links (Maybe should be renamed External references) he may have a point in relation to my gramma' and diction, so, was wondering if you could improve on it please?!--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, and thats really why I asked you.. and SlimVirgin.. rather than, say Striver, who like me, has a distinct POV on this. I've started the alternative proposal here: User talk:Irishpunktom/proposed Infidel --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hope things go well with the arbcom... anything you need? I didn't know how to do anything truly relevant on those pages. I see there's fun over at Aisha again. Well, you're whethering this storm better than I would... I think I'd just go to sleep. :) Good luck you. What's with all of the new barn stars? getting too big for your boots? gren グレン 00:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem of course. I should have said something earlier, but have been busy. We have often been in disagreement but I know you're needed here, I mean just looking at all the different types of people you're accused of being. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]