User talk:Nazli/Archive-1 Oct 2004 to Jan 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 13:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Welcome and ...Pakistanis/People interested in Pakistan-related topics on Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Would you consider listing yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Pakistan? Also, please check out the Talk page for that "Project".

Oh, and we need work on articles related to the Edhis.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:34, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It's okay not to list yourself there if you don't want to. I guess we will run into each other in various edits. See you there.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:04, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Mirza Ahmad[edit]

Thanks for your work in NPOVing that article. I've been meaning to do it for ages, and just haven't gotten a round tuit. Zora 19:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cancer[edit]

Jaundice in cancer is due to compression of the biliary tract or liver metastasis. It is not a systemic effect, unless there is haemolysis (rare). JFW | T@lk 10:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote the relevant section, I deliberately mixed signs and symptoms. Jaundice, when of cosmetic concern, becomes a symptom. The same thing goes for many other medical signs.
I placed jaundice under the signs/symptoms of local tumor effects because that is what causes the jaundice. Yes, the results are systemic, but that is of secondary importance. I would classify jaundice due to haemolytic anaemia as a systemic phenomenon, but not jaundice due to obstruction of the common bile duct by e.g. pancreatic cancer. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Qadianism[edit]

Anybody that gives any honorable status to Mirza Qadiani whether as prophet, nabi, or mujadid, messiah, mahdi, etc, is follower of Qadianism. You cannot believe in Mirza Qadiani in any shape or form and be a Muslim. The Lahoris are also followers of Qadianism.

Siddiqui 07:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qadianism is also the accepted name of this new religion. The insistenece by Qadianis to call themselves as Muslims must be balanced by the Muslim counter argument that Qadianis are non-Muslims. This view is repeateddly being censored and removed by Qadianis. It must be emphasized that this is not a Qadiani website and both Qadiani and Muslim arguments must be presented. Muslims are not claiming to be Qadianis but it is Qadianis that claim to be Muslims while following their non-Muslim beliefs.
Siddiqui 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Qadianis whether they belong to Lahori faction or Rabwa faction are both followers of Qadianism. They cannot claim to be Muslims. This is the whole argument that has resulted in unfortunate violence and deplorable loss of lives in Pakistan. Qadianis (Lahori and Rabwa) factions must refrain from calling themselves Muslims. Bahai's have moved from Islam and created their own religion. Qadianis should follow the same direction and create their own beliefs and religious books. It is the insistence of Qadianis to call themselves Muslim and then follow non-Muslim teachings of Mirza Qadiani that creates this controversy. If you feel that is unjustified then please bring this matter to Wikipedia arbitration. I will also bring Qadiani pages to prove my case. It will decided by Wikipedia committe and I will respect their decision.
Siddiqui 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yahya01 started this fued by adding Qadiani propaganda against Jamaat-e-Islami and Maulana Maudodi pages. I only replied by adding the Muslim perspective in Qadiani pages. So if you keep your Qadianis from adding their perspective on Muslim pages then I would also not add anything in Qadiani pages. I created the Qadianism page and I would appreciate that you do not change anything in that page. This will only result in my contribution to Qadiani pages.
Siddiqui 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is Wikipedia, not a truf war between rival "gangs". The principal of a "Neutral Point of View" reigns supreme here. Nazli 03:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that your contibution is "neutral" but my contribution is not ? I have no objection to your contribution in Qadiani related pages. But do not add your point of view in Muslim pages. You can create other pages to discuss the differences and perceptions of Muslims and Qadianis on different subjects. It may be place that all may contribute and discuss issue in civilized manner. Make sure that Qadiani posters like Yahya01 do not create controversy.
Siddiqui 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly please don't delete my comments on your talk page. Secondly I am refering to your offer/deal, not to your contiributions. Wikipedia is open to all and not the presonal property of some seleted groups who can distribute territory between themselves. The objective of Wikipedia is to provide information from a neutral prespective. This can only happen if all points of views are presented fairly. The fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his followers are considered non-muslims etc is clearly stated in all articles related related to Ahmadiyya. The main stream muslim point of view is clearly represented. Nazli 03:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is open to all then please do not revert my changes to Qadiani pages. I do not see your contribution as "neutral, fair or balanced" but only as Qadiani perspective. There is no "main stream Muslims" and only Muslims. Anybody that believes in Mirza Qadiani as Mujadid, Prophet, Mehdi or Messiah is not a Muslim but a Qadiani. You are free to write your beliefs in Qadiani related pages. But do not add your belief in Muslim pages. You can create new pages that discuss the differences between Qadianis and Muslims in Wikipedia accepted manner. It is not Muslims that have created this problem it was Mirza Qadiani that created this problem by declaring that all who do not believe in him are non-Muslims. You should keep that in perspective.
Siddiqui 03:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most improtantly if you want to carry on a meaningful discussion, please refrain from deleting my comments from your discussion page. Please note yet again that it was not Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who declared non-believers in his claims to be non-Muslims. It was his son who did so after his death. I have already posted links to sites veirfying this. You have deemed it fit to delete those comments from your discussion page. Nazli 06:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bye[edit]

Anybody that gives any honorable status to Mirza Qadiani whether as prophet, nabi, or mujadid, messiah, mahdi, etc, is follower of Qadianism. You cannot believe in Mirza Qadiani in any shape or form and be a Muslim. The Lahoris are also followers of Qadianism. You have the right to post your belief in Qadiani pages. Please do not add anything in Muslim pages. Create new page to have a discussion. I am not interested in discussing with you in my talk page. You creat Wikipedia where Muslims and Qadianis can discuss issues. You can send me an email, check my profile. Please do not revert my talk page in the future. I do not want to fill my talk page discussing Qadianism I have more important issue to discuss with other people. It was that Qadiani Yahya01 that started vandalizing Jamaat Islami page that this problem exploded. So please if you have objections thwn please go to Wikipedia arbitration committe and please stop bothering me. Bye, I hope not to hear from you. Siddiqui 06:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my above post. I do not want to have any discussion with you. If you have any concerns or complaints please forward them to Wikipedia arbitration. Please do not revert or add anything on my talk page.
Siddiqui 16:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Siddiqui[edit]

It's not worth violating 3RR over Siddiqui's talk page antics. Try going to an admin, posting on WP:ANI, WP:VPP, or try to IRC room #wikipedia on the freenode server. Pepsidrinka 16:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for your support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance by an admin, don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 17:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me[edit]

Hello, Nazli I hope that you will be perfect in your health. If you allow me to ask you one question that are you belonged to Lahore Ahmadiyya Anjuman or not. Of course this is your personal mater but if you are member of Anjuman then I think there is no hesitation to introduce your decent self as a member of lahore Ahmadiyya Anjuman. I hope you will draw you kind attention towards my request Mubasher 3:10, 7 April 2006 (PST)

Muhammad's marriages[edit]

The latest edits were introduced by an anon with, um, atypical views. Muslims here that I respect as thoughtful and fair (and they've left, darn it) made a point of saying that Islam highly approved of sex in marriage. Mustafaa wrote that section, and in all my reading, I've seen nothing to contradict it. I reverted. Zora 10:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadi Discussion Page[edit]

Please refer to Ahmadi Discussion page. Siddiqui 19:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks. You have also played a crucial part by standing up for your beliefs and principles.

Siddiqui 12:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Phippi46[edit]

Hi there, well some of our Non Ahmadies friends seems to have problem on the status of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, well they should atleast know, that this is not there personal home pages but an independent Free Encyclopedia, and any body has a right to write, what he or she think right is. Please don't be so aggressive and take part in civilised conversation.

Hi[edit]

Thanks for your reply, well it is very easy to say, what you like to say i hope you understand what I mean, any way hopefully I will be able to get your informative comments in future and also, if you have new information on any thing please share with me.

HI there.. as you can see there is alot going on and wondering is there any thing that you can share or discuss with me on subject interesting to you.


Hi can you creat a new discussion page as user Siddiqui request[edit]

Well fair enough for user Siddiqui, if he has a problem with Ahmadi or Lahori pages he is keep posting his ideas and belief on them but when some one try to write something on so called Muslim pages he just becomes strange, so my idea to creat a discussion page or creat a new article to discuss Muslim and their belief from Ahmadies or Lahori movement prespective. Phippi46 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi[edit]

Well that is why I want a discussion page, you are right this not a plateform to disucuss these issue, but if you see that there is clearly an attempt to creat some propeganda from some users, I just want to give Ahmadi point of view on this site as people see one side information, it will be good for them to seen apposite openion on the same site, and they can decide themselve then they do not have to go anywhere else. Phippi46 12:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well thanx for your reply, but dont you still belief that word Qadiani will be the official word to use, regadless it is negative or positive. What should we use for a official name, what we think right is or official one. Phippi46 00:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Qadianism with Ahmadi[edit]

Qadianism was originally created as a plaigarized form of anti ahmadiyyat content. You andUser:Siddiqui are the only two who, seemingly, can make any major changes without being attacked or having your edits reverted. It would be wise to merge these articles instead of keeping them seperate. --AeomMai 17:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Mirza Ghulam Ahmed's Page, there is a estimated members account for Ahmadi side, do you any info about the members of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, regards.. Phippi46 00:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by user Phippi46[edit]

Thanks for clearing the facts :-) ==

I think your recent edit in this page is to show that you are a Man and not women as you were awarded Women Barners Award. any way keep working what you belief and good luck in future Phippi46 00:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi once again, I have a question for you, I have also intrest in Metaphysics, specailly related Items like Quantom Physics and the Question of reality. I belief that we are I mean our world and univers is like a Computer system, it work some time like that. if you read Quantom physics you will be amazed that so many things are so strange that you can answer or understnd them without thinking differently. We are grow and trained in a world which have some rules and our concept of reality also based on some rules. what if these rules are not exactly what we think they are ? You are Muslim and you read Quaran, it is not strange when God tells us that he created this universe in lets say 7 stages, or 7 layers system, I have difficulty when I ask my self to define the word "Reality", what is reality, we can only answer according to reference points, so its also mean if there are only those reference points available to us right now to define this "Reality" and more not.. what if we found new reference points. I think in my personal belief new reference can be found in Quaran, we just have to see may be little differently. Things like revelations to Prophets from God, Angels things which are supernatural for a ordinary person must have some kind of meanings. How can we find something which can be explain in logical manner, there should be some way, for that I am working but further help will be highly appreaciated from others. people who have intrest in Physics and relegions are the people who can help, also, can you put some Ideas, or your belief here, or may be we can start or create a page to attract others people.

Thanks[edit]

You are welcome. Siddiqui 18:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...[edit]

I have added much to the ahmadi pages, however my edits are constantly reverted. My one large edit was positive, but it was well documented. What or whom do i see to put a stop to this?--AeomMai 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadi pages.[edit]

Thank you, however, i was planning this very thing as soon as the sockpuppet game is over. A certain user believes that a sockpuppet is in the ahmadi pages --AeomMai 20:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qadianism[edit]

the qadianism article has been rediected to theahmadi page.Was that you or Siddiqui or Phippi46? It is odd since I was told the article was important

Family website[edit]

Sorry to inolve you in this matter. But I think the following event occurred after I started contributing to Ahmadi related pages.

My family website: http://www.shaikhsiddiqui.com/ has been copied by a http://imrehan.com/. This person is an Ahmadi with links to Ahmadi websites. This only happened after my contribution to wikipedia. This person may be member of wikipedia and belongs Ahmadi community. This is another example of intellectual dishoesty by some people. Siddiqui 16:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

Hi! I just want to know about your recent changes in artical. Is is correct in first place to put the web link of Lahore Ahmadiyya Jamat in first place, as this artical is strictly about the Khalifatul Massih, which is currently Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya. As you know that Lahore Group do not belief or have Khalifat System, so I think it is not right to put this information in this artical. what you think ? regards phippi46 09:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some one put Mainstream view in Ahmadi Artical and as you know this is totally a POV example. Why, first the term he used Main Stream Muslim is controversial, there is no main stream Muslim, second the summary of these changes is also clearly present an Anti Ahmadi point of view, we are here in an Artical about Ahmadies there are other anti ahmadi artical and such information can be put over there, so I revert it back to a non-biased version. phippi46 15:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Nazli! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 01:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • what I was referning was the Beliefs of Ahmadies, as they have many time said that the accusation from Non Ahmadi Muslim to them that they do not belief the finality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I think I was trying to keep it short, thats why you thaught it is not clear there. Offcourse Ahmadies will not say that the violence used against them is fair. phippi46 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahamdi[edit]

1.Is this not a pov to mention the Ahamdis consider Mulim "Main stream Muslims".

2.Your second point is ok.I agree with it.so will not do anything to it.

3.i will think about this.

4.There was no need to mention it straight after mentioning Pakistani law it will be like critizing the law.

5.I didn't understand, pl elobrate this.

6.When Al-Qaeda is a called a terrorist organisation nobody says it is a pov even though many consider it not to be, also hezbollah is mentioned as this.There are labllebed so because U.S. and it Very special U.s.s.P says so.And that is the international law. The law of Oic may be loosly linked to saudi rules which deny entry to Mecca and Madina to Ahamdis, the reason is their non muslim status. If al Qadea says that it is not a terrorist organisation then no body will pay any heed to it.

will you give exp. for you statment "harbour beliefs similar to Ahmadis in some respects". In Gp paper you have give exp. Yousaf465

for 5 will you please elobrate which groups are invloved in this belief.On your point that hadith may abrogate some verses that is i think impossible because Quran is first source.also when collecters of hadith such as Burkahri collected Hadiths they checked that if these contradicte to any of the Quran verse if those did then they left out that hadith.

I used hezbollah and Al-qadea in the context that they both deny the charge of being a terrorist but american says they are terrorist so this very word is used for them.So word muslim cannot be used for ahamdi's and their use of this word describe themselves as this punishable by pakistani law and also Saudi arabia doesn't allow them to visit to Holy cities because they are non-muslims.So there is no need use main stream a muslim in this context is one who do testify in Finality of Prophethood.So someone share other idea than this with Ahamdis then ithas to checked that does it effect his Muslim status on other guidelines.Yousaf465

i didn't said that you belived that Quaran verses were abrogated.i only asked for expample of the groups which belived so in 18th century.

I wonder that you so narrow obersvations you must have thought a little before using the word universally.If U.S or it's allies believe so, not every one in earth belive what the west thinks so pl do some research before using such definent kind of a thing.I wasn't talking about their concept of war i was comparing how media protarys a organistaion.

It's not only the Pakistani law which condemen them not use this word.Islamic law say so as well if anybody observe a little wider than only watching geo's islamic programmmes then that body may evidence form history as well as Islamic law.

The definition of "terrorist" then includes the U.S military as well.so pl think before you speak.

About your point that LAH should be considred as Muslim then i would like to says if anybody today claim to deny holocaust then he is sent to jail so pl widen your knowlege and think of this example.

If you want any quote then(pl confirm this example but take it as something that might have been said) Abu hanifa is reported have said that if anybody even ask for evidence from a false prophet of his prophecy then the questioner is also considred as explled from Isalm.So how do you consider follwers of a condemmend person to be Muslims.Yousaf465

  • I just came back from vacation and I noticed the Ahmadi related articals were vandalised by some unknow users, is there any way to stop editing from unknown users. phippi46 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the thing is that this happend almost regularly, and people who do that, do not have courage to signed out with their names, I think we can ask to do that and stop this phippi46 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apology for a act of terror[edit]

pl follow this link.and pl think about it.Act of terror

  • I was reading your comments here and I was wondering what you mean by that, can you explain it further about it

phippi46 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming template changes[edit]

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have removed some non-related info for this paragraph (In the start of the Ahmadi Artical), as the same information is clearly mentioned in another paragraph under views of Main/orthodox Muslims. phippi46 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help re: User 83.67.21.186[edit]

Of course. :) I knew I forgot something -- in this case, letting you know I blocked the guy, heh. If you have any problems with them in the future, do feel free to contact me again, or to post to WP:AIV. Happy editing! Luna Santin 05:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picutre & inactive links[edit]

  • The links were inactive or missing therefore I added the general redirect link which is the position of Muslims in general. You can certainly disagree with that. I admitt my mistake about Hakim noor uddin's article. He is an important figure in the Ahmadi community and it was happened in haste. Regading the seemingly offensive picture, I don't see how it could be taken in wrong context. As the article suggests, Mirza sb. is a controversal figure, and the picture was just the depiction of this notion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it presents how different view points are held about a person. I wanted to contribute but its unfortunate as how my things can be taken as offensive. I still beleive that picture would not compromise the article and its up to you if you want it there or not. I think I remember similar pictures or other articles. --Babbarshair 07:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there, I have been not active for couple of days due to some work load in other fields, I recently saw that the Artical Ghulam Ahmad was massively edited and alot of non related information brought by some user, which is totally misfit in context of this Artical. I would like to know ur point of view on it and I want to know that How can I contact with wikipedia Arbeitry committe to report such vandalism. It is not the question of who is right or wrong ! it is the matter of Neutrality. For wikipedia it is not important that Mirza Ghulam was right or wrong, so I think this Bioghraphy artical should remain like that, as it was before. Second the point of view of non ahmadi muslims are not related in context of this artical as there are other artical where this information can be put. for example the information regarding the prophecies, is clearly biased and full of POVs. hopefull to get a reply from u soon, take care.... regards

Are there other Prophecies which fulfilled as prophesied by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad ? or thos are the only ones that u included, and if they are pls add them too. 2nd if it is possible to present a description of these Prophecies and back ground to clear them to readers. regards phippi46 18:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Seize Fire[edit]

Dear Nazli I have removed the picture temporarily to have peace for some time. These discussion are only wasting time. I hope it would be fine with you. Please continue your contribution and try to be neutral. I would expect that you would make sure no one vandalise the sections of 'death', 'criticism', and 'external links'. Best regards and I hope we don't have any hard feelings. --Babbarshair 00:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Dear Nazli, difference in POV is natural based on once birth, environment, and self. We discussed many issues and still we can have our diferences. You are trying to maintain this article with a neutral approach and as you have stated in your user page Ahmadiyya movement tend to evoke strong emotional responses from all parties. I hope you talk to phippi46 regarding this. Please check his contribution history to get an idea what I am saying if you don't already know. As I mentioned in my departing message that I would not be available due to time constraints. I hope you to be neutral on this controversial article. best regards --Babbarshair 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there. I have seen somebody removed the tags from the Artical, it is again with the old disputed position, it is not clear from the Artical that the information if real or only point of views. I'ould like to know your position either these tags or atleast one tag in the begining of the Artical to warn the user about its Point of view position regards phippi46 13:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazli = ?[edit]

My curosity is killing me, could you please put some light on this? --Babbarshair 10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common grounds[edit]

Dear Nazli, I was away from wikipedia for almost several months and suddenly some small random edits pushed me in this quagmire again. The most important thing for me is not to hurt anyone's feelings which unfortunately I think I might be doing for a few days now. Religion is a very sensitive topic and I feel that we should be responsible. I just don't want to put lot of things on my conscience which is already getting burdened. I have seen that you were a good editor and were trying to be fair, I just request to you to be so as I don't want to stay here anymore. I am done with wikipedia now and might not come here for some time. Please help me do so.

When you said trimming, although I resisted initially but then I started the process, unfortunately it was jeoperdised in the middle when I got the impression that you and others want to completely reverse everything. This to me is extremely unfair considering the time we have spent on this article. I know how offensive some critical remarks would be for many but we need to be intellectually fair. This is certainly diffecult as the thread of religion is attached to the heart, and lot of emotions are involved.

When I said I am leaving, I requested you to take care of three sections, Criticism, Death, and External links. Then you started the whole issue of POV which I did't reject. You then started deleing the whole passages and quotes. When I was starting the new article for prophecies I exactly knew what you would be wanting, and that would be to delete everything from Main article. I am not going to give any logic or wikipedia rationale here that any new fork doesn't mean the eleimination of complete information from the parent article. I just want you to please be reasonable.

We don't need to play mind games here. I hope that you would consider it and try to find some common grounds. If you can't then it's ok with me. I will also not let anyone vadalising the artilce and making it one sided. We can't acheive excellence in one day but if we take the first step wrong it would lead to disater. I hope you would honor my contribution to the article and try to accomodate it. The best way to progress is to avoid conflict, and for this article it means that we add and impove things, rahter cut and kill. Regards --Babbarshair 06:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I would not be writing comments anymore, as I have seen its an effort in vain. Lets do what we want to do. Frankly I don't see it ending in near future. So be it. Best of luck ... --Babbarshair 07:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you a lot for improving my poor english in [[--Ahmadi2 14:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)]]! --Ahmadi2 14:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nazli/Archive-1_Oct_2004_to_Jan_2007&oldid=1140343324"