User talk:Zora/2006archive8

Zora,

Thanks for your recent message about my Aug 16 edits to Sholay. Let's just clear up a couple of things. One, this is wikipedia. What you claimed was "perfectly adequate" may not really be so. Also I'm not certain you're the best person to judge or enforce something on Sholay. (Please don't take this personally.) Two, I don't think it's a good idea for you to speculate on whether English is my first language. Again, please don't take it personally. You wrote "perfectly adequate"; if something is adequate it probably isn't perfect (and vice-versa). I'm not nitpicking. It's just that we may be talking about style here but wikipedia is about more than just style. Your writing style may be different than mine but let's focus on the message. I won't poke at your style if you don't poke at mine, OK? Let's focus on making the article better?

Now, on to your specific comments. You urged me to keep synopses short and succinct. That's a valid view but it may not be shared by others. Your reasons for brevity (mainly that it could spoil the suspense or bore the reader) may apply to the latest films but not to Sholay. (Have you seen the synopsis for "The Godfather"?) I had good reasons to write what I did. Here are some of the reasons:


 * Sholay is a trailblazer in Hindi cinema. It set the standard for Hindi action films. My generation grew up watching Sholay (and others like it that followed). I'm not sure where you grew up, but I lived very near where Sholay was produced and filmed at the time. I also happen to have close friends in the Bollywood film business (particularly in the stunt department) *including* one of the guys who set up the dangerous and thrilling rail track scene. Sholay is a big deal for us and I think Wikipedia would benefit from our opinion.


 * There are several elements that underpin the film. Words like daku, badla and izzat are used to frame that element; it is *just right* when they are in Hindi. (Hindi cinema didn't really know a daku could be as fearsome as Gabbar, for example.) Plain English sounds weak at best and lame at worst. (I'm not sure if you speak Hindi with any fluency. It's not a strict prerequisite but it's really helpful when you set out to review something as big as Sholay.)


 * Your version isn't really perfect. "an entire life of", "had himself attempted", "being village India"? (Entire means complete but one-half of Radha's life is over.) Again, I'm not nitpicking. The point is that Wikipedia is *meant* for peer review so the quality of the articles gets better.


 * And finally, I didn't replace your original synopsis. I merely rewrote some parts of it in the middle.

Okay, so that's my view. I hope this hasn't hurt your feelings. You said you are a firangi. It's also evident that you're interested in this. (Otherwise you wouldn't spend quite so much time editing/maintaining it.) Just let me offer a couple points of advice:


 * One, practice tolerance. It will heighten your enjoyment of Sholay. Wikipedia is meant to share and improve the quality of information.


 * Two, try learning Hindi (particularly Bhojpuri and/or Lucknowi) if you haven't already done so. This will frame several social and thematic elements so you could write with more authority on this kind of thing.

Anyway, that's what I wanted to say.

later, Straight Talk (PS - I can't seem to send a "return message" or put this at the bottom of the page. So please don't get mad; it was NOT my intention to have it at the top of your page.)

Amitabh Bachchan (2)
I am responding to your following comments: Your revision of the Amitabh article is NOT OK because you have made the lead paragraph much too long. There is a common style used in all articles, and one element of that style is an introductory paragraph of at most a few sentences, describing the subject of the article in the briefest possible terms. Furthermore, your para is much too worshipful of Amitabh. He is just an actor! This is an encyclopedia, not a film magazine, and our style should be dry and plain.

Responses:
 * If you feel the paragraph it too long, deleting everything is not the solution. You could have taken positive action and condensed it. If you really care about the standards then condense it down according to your own guidelines.
 * I agree WikiPedia entries should document facts, but are you telling me that you will go and delete the first paragraph on the following entires Gandhi and Adolf Hitler as well? Clearly you have no clue about the popularity Amitabh Bachchan enjoys and the impact he has had on more than 20% of world population.
 * Amitabh Bachchan was also in Indian politics apart from being an actor. He has been in the news for reasons other than acting, which you are probably not aware of.

I agree let us adhere to the WikiPedia format, but this article is in progress and needs to be improved and condensed. Please let all your peers participate and don't let your personal likes and dislikes dictate what is documented and what is not.

Thanks for invitation/suggestion to the Indian Cinema Project. I will definitely join when I have more free time on my hands.

Pratulka 23:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan
Zora,

It was very inconsiderate of you to change Amitabh Bachchan's page to your liking. You reasoning "rv version in standard English without exaggerated praise and personal opinions" is highly flawed. I suggest you consider the following:
 * The version you reverted to had several grammatical mistakes and half sentences.
 * The introduction section has facts, which you had completely removed. I strongly suggest that you read it again carefully.
 * This is not your college news paper, please allow your peers to enjoy the same freedom as you so lovingly crave. For heaven's sake look at the same page in other languages before you destroy other people's work.

If you don't like any particular section, please edit those rather than completely throwing away everything. Please think before you act.

Re: Laundry Article
Dear Zora,

I am writing you with regards to the message you sent to me. I was doing research and found the Wikipedia listing on laundry. I have been aware of this new type of process for a few years now, and that was the impetus for including the listing. There was no mention about it in the article, only some strange process for washing clothes in the back trunk of your car (which was apparently acceptable). I added the Magnetic Laundry System link ONLY as a way to give visitors another place to find information about the new(er) process, since the encyclopedia doesn't cover it. It has nothing to do with commercial purposes (on my part) and if I broke the rules regarding Wikipedia policy, I apologize. But you still shouldn't jump to conclusions like that. I think the content itself was valid (without the link), and I am only trying to contribute. This is the first time I have tried to contribute to Wikipedia. I can't know everything right off the bat. I thought my contribution was valid. Please give me your feedback. Thank you very much. (I hope this is the right place to respond to you).

Re: Rang De Basanti
Hi Zora,

I don't agree with the revert to the Rang De Basanti page as when someone reads a plot synopsis, they expect a summary of the whole story. I also dont think its fair to say that readers dont read long synopses since that is a generalization and not a fact. Not to mention, the synopsis I wrote was not as long as other plot summaries I have read on Wikipedia. Addressing the issue of giving away the ending, that is what a plot summary is supposed to do. While the plot synopsis may be boring, it is the reader's choice to read the article and if he chooses to disregard the warning : Plot and/or ending details follow (written in Bold) then, that is the reader's conscious decision. However, in the interest of not starting a revert war, I will not revert the article back but I would appreciate a response.

Thanks

Thanks for telling me about King Kamehameha IV
Hi Zora,

Wow, you scared the life out of me when you told me that a section about the history of King Kamehameha IV was deleted from wikipedia. I think my 12 year old daughter may have accidentally deleted that while I was still logged on to my computer. I am a Hawaii history nut myself so, my heartfelt thanks goes out to you for restoring that section.

My daughter just completed a research project about Jonathan Napela, the resident superindent of the Kalaupapa leper colony on Molokai for Hawaii History Day. It was a media project. I am thing about posting the documentary on wikipedia.

I noticed that you speak Tongan and French. I speak Tahitian and French since I lived in Tahiti a ways back.

I top acting cranky! == Don't be childish! The other editors like the page. And if you think it's bad english then correct it rather than reverting the page. stop creating conflicts. why don't you find a new other hobby~ you're acting childish and i think it's because you're having heavy periods. just stop annoying me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs)

Thanks
Thanks Zora for the blog. It was interesting. I read the first article "Jews During Holocaust Reviled For Being “Muslim”". I felt I can not agree with editor on all points there. Of course I am neither knowledgeable enough nor am a good example of a typical Muslim. I agree with the conclusion that:"They (the Muselmanns) became indifferent to everything happening around them. They excluded themselves from all relations to their environment." but based on other reasons rather than submission to God's will.

My POV is that Islam encourages people to pay much more attention to hereafter rather than their worldly life. So, I believe this made many people lose their motivation to work hard, be productive and active. I don't say that there are not arguments against this interpretation but I definitely believe that the Qur'an and Hadiths encourage people to take their worldly life much easy. This is why I believe the following statement was/(is?) a good description of many Muslims. "They (the Muselmanns) became indifferent to everything happening around them. They excluded themselves from all relations to their environment."

Some Qur'anic and Hadith evidences:

“Set forth to them the similitude of the life of this world: It is like the rain which we send down from the skies: the earth's vegetation absorbs it, but soon it becomes dry stubble, which the winds do scatter: it is (only) God who prevails over all things. “ (18:45)

Ali said in his last will: "My advice to you is to be conscious of Allah and steadfast in your religion. Do not yearn for the world, and do not be seduced by it. Do not resent anything you have missed in it. Proclaim the truth; work for the next world."

" Imam Ali (as) wrote to Salman al Farsi (ra) : To continue, surely, the likeness of this world is that of a snake: it is soft to touch, and deadly poisonous. The ignorant child is distracted by it, and the one with understanding and intellect is cautious of it. So turn away from what fascinates you in it, for how little of it stays with you."

Maybe as the editor said "Very few understood what I had done", I am not understanding his point.

Anyways, thank you very much for the blog again. --Aminz 04:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh Zora, I can now understand that I didn't understand anything of that article. I can now see in what sense the word "submission" is used there. I think "submission to God" in the Islamic sense is supposed to mean "submission to God's commandments" and not "submission to fate". The example usually made is Abraham's obedience of God's commandment in sacrificing his son.
 * Unfortunately this is misused by some Muslims who believe Muslims should blindly follow the clerics.
 * But letting this aside, thanks for the beautiful prayer.
 * I usually start very energetic and impulsive but give up soon I think. Thank you very much again for both the blog and the prayer. --Aminz 07:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna
Made it 4 movies, will work on the awards. Also will first get sources and add a bit about the hysteria he used to generate ( god knows why) which was quite remarkable for India at that stage.Haphar 10:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive

 * You're right. Done. Zora 13:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. That was quick. It looks great now. Are you an admin? I notice that you have 12000 edits and way too many barnstars :) - Aksi_great (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Having four different editors mad at you is an achievement in itself. You have only been blocked once (for 3RR) and you were not afraid to admit it yourself. That just shows your level headedness. Even though you never become an admin, please don't stop editing controversial articles as long as you don't violate policies. There is always someone who must do the dirty job. Maybe someday some great editor like Nichalp or Durin would notice you and nominate you for adminship. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Akash. Most of us are not bold enough to pick up tiffs with controversial editors. Someone is always required to make that bold revert & put their foot down. I feel you are a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. Keep it up! Cheers. --Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Shez
I've blocked Shez for 24hrs for being uncivil. 4 editors at once?! But I'm sure you'd agree with me that none of these 4 can match up to LordSuryaofShropshire posts. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Anwar too. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Browncoat?
What's a browncoat? - Reaverdrop 17:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. I have heard Serenity is the greatest sci-fi movie ever, but also to watch the TV series first... the whole TV series was on my pay-per-view menu, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Sounds more delightful than ever though. There is also a "reaver" in Pushing Ice, which is absolutely worth getting hold of; the reaver there is a nearly invincible "femtotech" robot. But Protoss Reavers predate both the others by over five years. - Reaverdrop 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Category deletion
Hi Zora, have you any interest in Category:Persian deities, which has recently been emptied out and may possibly be deleted soon?? Could you salvage it, have you any knowledge of the topic? ImpuMozhi 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Menehune
User:Emperor has added a WikiProject Paranormal tag to Talk:Menehune. I don't think this is appropriate given the users comments about "bigfoot" and "flying saucers" on my talk page. I feel that these paranormal enthusiasts are taking advantage of Hawaiian folklore, mythology, legend, and history, by trying to label menehune as "paranormal phenomena" (they're not doing this on the Leprechaun page). I don't think the "paranormal" has any place in this article. The user has also added a paranormal external links section which should be removed. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Film category
I have removed the category on the Indian films with Muslim background .I will discuss it first .Shyamsunder 23:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review
Hey – You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 14:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam
Hi, I have included a new image in the talk page of the Islam template, please make your comments about it to be included in the template, thanks « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 18:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

70.134.82.18
this is my ip..I guess. I got the message that it did vandilism but I didnt. The article was bollywood, but I never been on that aritcle or vanilised it. I dont get it,how did my ip get into this..Coasttocoast 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

re the Salafi article
Zora:

You are right when you say that some of those who walk under the banner of "Salafi" advocate the killing of the Shia. With regards to violent attacks on Sufis, I am not familiar with any or have heard of these groups attacking them so I don't think I should comment in that regard.

Maybe the biggest issue in that sentence is the use of a generality. I consider myself to try to follow the Salafi ideology. I am not the type who supports Usama ibn Laden, but instead in the vein of Shaykh Abd al-Azeez ibn Baaz and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Uthaymeen. Along with Shaykh al-Albani, these are probably the biggest three scholars of Salafism in most peoples estimation in the past 25 years or so. To my knowledge, none of them have declared sufis and shias as a whole and specifically the individual followers of that methodology heretics. Maybe the article would be better suited with instead of explaining this issue in a general sentence, explain that those who say they adhere to the Salafi ideology have different views on the Sufis and the Shias. Some consider these groups heretics while other say the common shia or sufi is astray.

The reason I selected astray for this was because it was more encompassing of all the views of Salafis in this regard. Clearly, for those who consider them to be heretics, then they would necessarily consider them astray. I wanted to only make a small edit without changing the whole article.

Sorry if the way I sent this message is not inline with the protocol of how responses to wikipedia messages are sent. I usually when it comes to the articles only try to make a contribution without causing an argument or getting involved in those that already exist. Hopefully, my edit wasn't too bold for that article. ZaydHammoudeh 22:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Split of Academy of Gundishapur
Hello, as per one of your suggestions, Academy of Gundishapur was split into an article about the academy and one about the city (Gundeshapur). Comments welcome. Flammifer 07:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fashion Freedom
I consolidated my responses at the Fashion Freedom article. I've been involved with this movement for just over ten years. You may well be a wikipedian extraordinairre, but when it comes to this particular topic, it's clear from your off-target comments (see link) that you simply have no knowlege of this rather extensive movement. Nothing personl, but I and many othes would appreciate it if you would refrain from hacking something simply because you've never heard of it before. Lack of knowledge about something doesn't mean it's a target for deletion. It means that you need to take the time to research the topic more thoroughly. I've added some additional links to the article which may help bring you up to speed on this movement.

Removals of Commercial Link
Nevermind. I sent you answer to your answer already. Take care/

Sari links
I just added that html comment tags because an anon editor was adding a real commercial link (one with lots of ads) to the page. And yes, the sari page is in dire need of some good photos. Let me see if I can get any. Regards -- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu _ Joseph 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

First time here
Zora,

Let me apologize if this is the wrong way to reply to the message you left me. I'm new here, so I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to reply on your page or my own page.

Anyways, let me thank you for the points you brought up first of all. Then I'd like to point out that text can always be misinterpreted and seem to give a different meaning than that intended by the author, as in my case. What I wrote is not propaganda (and I actually do not appreciate the accusation) rather it is my complete honesty. I'm trying to explain to people simply, there are NO groups in Islam and there is one correct path as clear in the Qur'aan and Sunnah. This path does not belong to anyone, and no one has the right to block anyone from following it (as many students of knowledge do these days). Also, no matter what you call it, it is the same manhaaj (curriculum), whether it is called Salafi or XYZ or whatever. The point of using the word Salafi is to simplify the saying "We follow the Qur'aan and Sunnah, with the understanding of the Companions." As an Information Science graduate (both at the UG and Master's level) I feel that I can add value to this statement by saying that Humans by nature like to simplify and classify everything. It allows for them to feel that they have everything simple and organized in their heads. This is also one of many neuro-cognitive psychological theories (schemas in the brain). I'll spare you the mombo jumbo of all the science stuff, I'm sure you understand my point.

Also, I will take your consideration to heart and try to clarify some points that may have been misunderstood and simply not correct. You mentioned that my words seemed to simplify that any layman can look into the qur'aan and sunnah and get understanding - which is not 100% accurate, rather scholars help interprete the meaniend with their vast knowledge (as any scholar in any other field would). Also, you mentioned about following the "right" scholars - the right scholars are known by the truth like the saying goes "Men are known by the truth, truth is not known by men" or maybe I reversed it. Anyways... I appreciate you taking the time to read my lengthy article and critique it. I hope that there will be more dialouge between us in the future. However, I would appreciate it if it is within the bounds of friendly manners. I'm not writing any of this stuff for my own sake, or my own fame and glory. I do it for Allah's sake sincerely and I try to display the truth as best as I can, considering that I am not very knowledgable at all. With that said, I hope that we can have constructive discussions in the future. Then I'll have something to do at 9am when I get to work : )

--Abu Mahdhoorah 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Box office
Hello, Zora, I know that we don't have screen and box office information on any of our articles and I do intend to keep it that way, but the Ajith article always seems to be a battle ground, so I thought (not sure if it was such a good idea, though - maybe it's just useless) to first talk about *why* we remove certain parts of the current article, so people understand and we don't get another revert war and no one gets banned like User:Shez:15 did. I thought it might be helpful, also for the anon user who was reverting stuff -- maybe to get him/her understand and adopt a user name. What do you think? Is it just useless? You have more experience than I have when it comes to stuff like that. Best regards, --Plumcouch 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If I had to put up a list which editor on WP I seek to emulate, you would be number one, since you were the first person on WP to talk to me and I think you set things right in the best way possible. Sometimes, I don't know what to say if someone comes up with something really weird on a page. I'm just baffled. You always seem to know what to say - that's quite frustrating for someone who's still trying really hard. Anyway, as for the Ajith article: when everyone has had his/her say during the next 24 hours and everything will be fine, we revert it back, if not, we make an support/against/neutral election and see what comes out of it. If that anon continues the way s/he does, I'll have to find a nice admin to help me. Do you think that's okay? It's the only thing I can think of to solve the situation. --Plumcouch 21:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC) PS. And I don't think you're *hated* - maybe people are a tiny bit irritated, that's all.

Sorry!
Hey! sorry Zora if i really offended you. it's just that i was really frustrated because you would constantly revert my edits without giving them thought like others did. we were all fine with what was put on the page until you came again and reverted it all. if you want anything to change. just reason with me before. i know our opinions may not be the same but we can compromise at times. You cut all references. that wasn't clever. u think the page is going to stay like it was a year ago but things change and new sections are added to pages. Anyway, I learnt my lesson from getting blocked. I would like it if you and plumcouch could tone the article down keeping all the sections intact like they are maybe improvise on wordings. By the way, I'm letting you keep the Veer-Zaara page as it is. Although, I totally disagree because Rani was named before Preity in the movie as well as on the official website due to many factors which are more known to the producer himself. The best example would be Devdas and there are many others. It's like Aishwarya Rai had the lead role in Devdas, Madhuri Dixit had the supporting role. Still, Madhuri was credited before her due to seniority, name, and many other factors. Here, Madhuri even had a shorted role. Despite, it's credited like that. But no points in arguing, it's going to be a messy fight if we keep going on in the case of Veer-Zaara. I need to compromise here. It doesn't really matter who is listed before. It's a minor thing. Yet, it would have done justice to the movie and the official website if it was otherwise. Leaving this behind, I am going to work on our working relationship. And I apologize truly for my bad behaviour. I really mean this although i can't expect you to forgive me. Thank you for your time! shez_15 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops!
I didn't know about the revert rule! Secondly, I didn't revert anything, simply added things on a few pages. Or are you talking about Rani's page. I didn't get what you were trying to say. Please keep that format, just ask someone to help you tone it down. I promise I won't add more things for a long time if you tone it down on that format. Thanks! shez_15 01:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there
Hey Zora. I have seen you editing around, esp. on the Rani Mukerji article. I have always noticed that you assume good faith and are working for the good of the encyclopedia. Always keep a cool head, and it is always good to ask other editors to come in and resolve disputes. Atleast, that is something which I do. Thank you for your cool contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, -- Andy123  talk  16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Vendettas
Zora, it's clear from your credentials that you're a crusader of sorts. Provided you crusade within your area of expertise, I'm all for that. But when you and others come into my area of expertise, claiming irrelevancy, neologism (impossible for acronyms in existence for more than a decade) and other irrelevant comments, it's disrespectful, at best. I liken it to an artist who attempts to correct a physicist that colors aren't additive. If the last didn't make sense to you, you're probably not a physicist. My point is that I've travelled the globe, lived in several countries, visited more than 30, have seen quite a few things in my 40+ years, and am merely attempting to document several rather sizeable phenomenon with respect to the numbers of individuals involved. It's not neologism (as discussed above). As I'm but one of 1.4 Billion men who wear MUGs, and am but one of at the very least several million men around the world who're familiar with this term, it's not "original thinking/authorship" etc., either.

Please take a step back, realize the world is a much larger place than any single person's limited sphere of understanding, and that Wiki caters to hundreds of nations, not just the Western few who wrongly believe men wearing anything but pants is somehow Biblically, and therefore wrong. Take a look at the plates in the back/front of any Bible. They depict Noah, Jesus, Moses, etc. - all wearing a MUG (male unbifurcated garment). The words aren't a new term. They're simply a collection of three words used to accurately describe, and encompass, this particularly form of fashion. Wiki even has a long-standing entry for "unbifurcated" which references clothing. These terms, in the English language for hundreds of years, were collected into the acronym MUG more than a decade ago as an alternative to saying "skirt-like garments" and "robe-like garments," particularly when some MUG wearers are highly offended by these terms as they equate them with women's clothing. But they're quite happy with MUG, as it's both an accurate description, and one that's not at all offensive.

I hope in the future you and others take the time to more thoroughly research the voluminous history behind Wiki articles before you vow to others that you're going to crusade against them (for as of yet unstated reasons). Please do all Wikipedians this service. Thank you for your time. Dr1819 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora!
I'm not angry at you! Just have a question! Are you going to constantly guard me? I mean no other editor has been reverting my contributions. It's only you. I mean I said sorry. Get over it! Don't need to get personal. What I did in Chalte Chalte trivia was added something new which i just found out. I've listed the site now. And there are many others. Rani was actually the first choice for the movie. Since, the page is already short, I added something. You have a problem? Aishwarya even stopped talking to Rani for what she did. But now it's cleared out. She was the first choice. Rani didn't stab her on the back. They were good friends before. Ash perhaps still doesn't know that Rani was the first choice of Chalte Chalte. Poor Ash! Still not working with Shahrukh for kicking her out! Anyway, you might not be aware of the whole thing. Watch koffee with karan! Shahrukh states these facts. Go to video search on yahoo and type koffee with karan! Well, I hope you don't watch me possesively. There must be something better to do besides watching me. You can work on Rani's page instead. Work on my version as a suggestion.

shez_15 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great!
It's great you're correcting my language. I think it's good enough what you did on Bas Itna Sa Khwaab Hai. But whenever i put anything in trivia about rani, you revert it. I am only stating facts. That's my job. You can restructure things. I don't mind. By the way, I had a question! Can I reward someone with an award? Am I allowed to?

shez_15 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad
I don't question that the article is well researched, but as a researcher, knowing the source of claims is critical; if I were, as a Historian, to try to write a biography on Muhammad, I would need to be able to know where all of the statements, specifically, come from. I disagree entirely that it would make the article unwieldy; you might notice that Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. is very heavily referenced throughout, and it was selected as a featured article on the anniversary of Joseph Smith's birthday. You may also note that virtually all respectable historical articles include cited references, either in-text as in the Joseph Smith, Jr. article, or using numbers and foot- or endnotes. As I came to the article on Muhammad hoping to use it as a beginning point for research on specific aspects of his life, finding no citations was quite disappointing for me. The Jade Knight 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No harm done at all. I do understand your concern—the Joseph Smith article above includes citations from sources which may generally be considered quite dubious; however, seeing as many (if not most) of the sources critical of Smith are entirely unverified (and often tertiary sources themselves), they have been kept because there are some outspoken critics of Smith who insist that the article would be one-sided without them. In regards to Muhammad, I would recommend giving precedence to primary sources whenever possible, and when these are unavailable, more scholarly or professional secondary sources. As which source is used will not actually change the content of the article, I do not see how it would cause too much contention to simply use one or another arbitrarily.
 * You seem to have a great deal of knowledge concerning Islam and its foundings; perhaps you could help me. My goal is actually to write a comparative paper on Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Jr. as founding prophets of restoration religions. Seeing as the history of Muhammad is, in its particuliars, very difficult to verify unless one accepts the Qur'an and hadith as factual, or undertakes extensive historical scrutiny to try to "weed out" the less historically verifiable elements. All of that, however, is beyond the scope of my paper, so I plan to take an internal approach—from the vantage of Muhammad as he is referred to in the Qur'an and the hadith (I am aware of any other arguably primary sources available. If you know of any, I would be appreciative to learn of them). What would be most useful to me is a biography of Muhammad annotated with references primarily to the Qur'an and the hadith. Do you know of any such, available in print or (preferably) online? As I am largely unfamiliar with Islamic history, I am having difficulty trying to determine which biographies would be best in this regard, and I do not have time to read them all, unfortunately. It also may be worth noting that I cannot read Arabic, so I am unable to use untranslated works. The Jade Knight 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please!
Could you please help me on Rani Mukerji's page. Can we please keep my form. I just want those categories: Early Work, Breakout Role and Mainstream Cinema. It goes very well with her page and career graph. If you could only work alongside me, we can make the page so much better. We just need to cooperate. I promise I'll listen to you and compromise the most. If it doesn't work out, you can revert to prior version. I'll move the page back to its older version. Just revise it! Tell me what you don't want on the page. I'll remove it or you can too. If you have any suggestions, I can incorporate them. You will be given the right to reframe sentences, however you want to structure them. I can give you references if you ask on the validity of a fact. I have already removed Fanta and other minor things not needed on the page. Personal life was the whole problem. I guess I'll remove it until someone starts dating her. Thanks! We can work on it! shez_15 20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Khanna
Rajesh Khanna's awards + info on "hysteria" + some biography details added along with sources. Haphar 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!
Hey! Thanks so much for your advice. I think you're right about the breakout role. I just thought she had a lulled career graph after Kuch Kuch Hota Hai with many average earners. Then, after Saathiya, she had simultaneous hits. But i guess we can make a breakout role for her when she retires. Anyway, pa7 and others edited the page and made it great! By the way, I'm not touching the Rani's page for a while now. Disputes just make me go crazy! I thought in the meanwhile I could create more articles on her links to movies which I find interesting. I don't think I'll make a page for every movie! Well, I have exams coming up too! So, I won't bother you guys much for the next month. Have fun with work! shez_15 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dia Mirza
Hi, Zora, I've got some problems over at the Dia Mirza article. Two guys are there: one wants his homepage be displayed there at all costs and the other wants a mediator (I think it's such a small matter -- why a mediator?) to resolve the "conflict". If you have time, maybe you could have a look? I'd be eternally grateful. ;) Best regards, --Plumcouch 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'll remove protection in a few days unless I hear from you sooner. Tom Harrison Talk 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

you make big mistakes
salam. I'm a shiite and I should tell you:

1- some of the shiite are Persian and the others are Turk, Arab and etc. So the fight between Safavids and Ottomans isn't important for some of us.

2- Shiites have never used star and crescent as their symbol so they don't familiar with it. We preffer to use mousqe or Shahada as the symbol or any other symbol which relates to Islam in our minds.

3- Shahada as I know has only one form and we use from what « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ »  (T)has designed in farsi wikipedia, although most of Persian are Shiite. I guess you aren't familiar with Islam and Shiite too.--Sa.vakilian 03:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

shahada«شهادتَین»(which means two confesses)is the words that you say when you want to become Muslim and repeat it in each pray(salat). Absolutely there isn't anything but I believe to one God(Allah) and Mohammad is his prophet.«أشهدُ ان لا اله الا الله و اشهد انّ محمدا رسول الله»

So there isn't any difference betweeen shi'a and Sonni. But what shi'a said isn't added to it. It is:«اشهد انّ علیا ولي الله» and we say it in Azan.--Sa.vakilian 07:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Help! Borobudur
Just did a major rewrite on a previously very choppy piece on Borobudur, the section on Interpretation, however, I have nearly nil background in Buddhism, some of the texts cited I can't find any other ref to - can you have a quick look please? Or suggest someone who might have requisite smarts? (I haven't forgotten that jewelry stuff, btw, just been real byusy on some Ancient Greece translations).Bridesmill 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (I think ) Have moved the ref to a footnote, recovered some of the overwrite; the {fact} tags though, now you are making me go to the library & dig out Miksic; as this came from the Dutch article & all the rest of the facts check out ok I was fairly confident (plus it makes eminent sense) The bit about the Burmese quote, very germane to the impact construction had on the economy; I'll dig up the ref, there is some evidence out there that after the completion the stability of the Sailendra went to heck, likely as result of economy; so off to more reading.Bridesmill 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ads in Mirza's article
Hi, Zora, just noticed you removed the Ads again - it will be to no avail. Just check the last four to five comments on the discussion page. These anons are slowly but surely starting to get on my nerves. Best regards, --Plumcouch 22:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My edits
Got your message, but I do not quite get what you are refering to. Thank you.--CltFn 22:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read a number of those scholars and I disagree with your categorization, though like you I may not be able to vouch for all of them. As far ar Reza , he is definitely in the bridging the divide category as you will quickly see when you read his book.I you look at his sources , which are listed at the end of his book you will since a staggering list of Islamic as well as non-Islamic sources. And what he writes is exactly that , what I might describe as a synthesis of several views structured into a unified vista. Furthermore I do not , what you mean as traditional Islamic training, since this is a subjective standard . --CltFn 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Historiography
Based on what you say, I think you have a misunderstanding on the meaning of that word. Historiography is defined as the writing of history based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials and composition of these materials into a narrative subject to scholarly methods of criticism. However I do see the point that you are bringing up, since this word is subject to ambiguity and possible misinterpretation by the readers, who are likely to miss the subtle difference between the word historiography and history. Somehow I feel that the word historian is too broad, since this word does not imply any real adherance to standards of verifiable research. Historiographer on the other hand does imply an examination of the methodology used in research and the use of actual historical evidence and primary sources--CltFn 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination
 Aminz would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Aminz to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Please accept it Zora. Please. --Aminz 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I am more abrupt and short-tempered than you; be sure. Please do not forget that you have too many friends as well. Guess what, I will dishonestly secretly inform all your friends about your RfA. The RfA will be up for a week. Who checks the Requests for adminship link frequently? btw, who are the Shia/Iranian editors you have conflict with? Maybe I can be helpful since I am both Shia and Persian. Maybe. --Aminz 02:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me chat a bit with ManiF and Zereshk about your adminship first. Maybe it works, maybe not. I hope it does. --Aminz 02:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I had a chat with ManiF about your adminship. Based on our conversation, it seems I can be of no help here. Zereshk has not responded me yet, but I found his opinion about you here:, it is in Persian, you can't read. It is about your views on Shiasm. With high probability, Zereshk will reply me back the same thing. Again, I don't think I would be able to be of any help here either. I sometimes doubt who I am. Am I really a Muslim? Am I really a Shia? I think I am. Today someone who knew me for awhile told me that I am not. He told me I have no relationship with God and that is true. I used to have, but not anymore. But at least I have not forgotten to use the term “God” in my writings. I used the word “God” several times here. At least I have something to cling to. Tiny but pure. Enough for me not to lose my hope. --Aminz 09:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

May I say that it is absolutely disgusting that discussions about a user are held in a language a user cannot understand. To non-Farsi speakers, it looks like malicious gossip and conspiratorial.--Ahwaz 11:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at this
Please contribute here to take a user out of wiki who vandalizes


 * Apparently there is an RFC impending, see User talk:Gurubrahma and here- apparently I support Zora the vandal, see also here for evidence about my apparent evil alliance with Zora.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

an advice
salam.

I'm the guy who debate you about Shahada in Islam. I'm Persian so if there's any mistake in my text, please forgive me. I spoke with Zeresk and also read Amins opinion about you. I don't want to guide on he basis of this narrow information, but I found you an eager person without expert knowledge about Islam. So I want to introduce some good books.

1-If you want to become familiar with theology of Shi'a, Please read "The History of Islamic Philosophy" which has been written by Henry Corbin And I guess ha has several books about Shi'a and Islam. Also his books are philosophical and he use phenomenological methodology.

2- If you don't have enough knowledge, please read "Shia in Islam" and "Quran in Islam, which have written by Allameh Tabatabaei . He wrote these books, because an American professor wanted to introduce Shiite to American academic society. But understanding these books doesn't need academic knowledge.

3- Also you can read "Islam:AN Introduction" which has written by Annemarie Schimmel and "Understanding Islam" which has written by Frithjof Schuon.

I can introduce some books about politics in Shi'a and some books about Iran if you want.

I hope The God guide you and me to real truth.--Sa.vakilian 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Muhammad
I would agree with the way you put it is better. However I thought the way it was said before was pussy-footing around the issue a bit. I just tried to clarify it. I'm sure it goes without saying but I didn't mean anyone any disrespect.--Alan Frize 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bindi
Sorry to say, I am getting why people find you a pain. So the occasional Hindu woman beset in Hawaii by an alien culture renounces use of the Bindi. Big deal. This must rank with your assertion that you have seen endless women dancing Bharatnatyam on stage with their breasts uncovered. ImpuMozhi 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear, good, all-forgiving Zora auntie, I am sorry, I really am. You are a blessing to WP -- think of all those specimens out there. I have been spending all this time thinking how best to amend the above, while making the point that every oddity on earth need not get equal time on WP. please please please... accept my apology. ImpuMozhi 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Only two of those several women are without Bindis, and how do you know that they are even Hindu?? Let me tell you that you are misinformed in both 'white for widow' and 'urban woman' affairs, but that for later. I am rewording to say 'traditional', so as to make room for the odd deviant. If you have a reference for a Hindu community where the Bindi is not traditional, that would be very noteworthy, please let me know. ImpuMozhi 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, I like to think of myself as being adept at language and wording, but just see the influence of context -- I read the "new fashion" statement and trotted out the 'always'. Bad day. Why don't Wikipedians ever interact except to argue?? Structural flaw. Take care, ImpuMozhi 22:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting opinion of Muslim editors
Hello! (I know you're not Muslim but you're very knowledgeable on the subject.) Could you please stop by Talk:Christianity and give your opinion? We are debating whether the word 'monotheism' should be included in the intro to the Christianity article. According to most dictionaries, the definition of monotheism is The dogma or belief that there is one God. Now, all Christians believe there is one God and all Christian creeds (such as the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Creed) profess a belief in one God. The point of contention is the Holy Trinity. Christians believe that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit all make up one essense of God, i.e. are three parts of one God (known as hypostasis). Now, several editors think that because this is different from the Islamic view of Tawhid--and they alledge Muslims think Christians are not monotheistic, but tritheistic--we cannot say Christianity is monotheistic like is done in the Islam article. Many editors content, however, that the definition of monotheism is based solely on belief, not truth. So if Christians believe their God is one God, they are by definition monotheistic, even if they may not be right. All it takes to be monotheistic is to believe there is one God. Others, however, think we can only say "Christianity is a monotheistic religion according to its followers." Again, some editors (including myself) have issue with this because it's basically like saying "Christianity believes it believes that there is one God," which of course is redundant. In my opinion, monotheism by definition is the belief! None-the-less, we would like to know from a Muslim editor: 1) Do Muslims view Christianity as tritheistic? 2) Even if so, considering Christians still believe there is one God, are they still not monotheistic? Sorry for the long post, but there's a lot of debate I had to summarize. Thanks, — Aiden 21:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Zereshk's personal attacks
I think you should report him for his incivil remarks and his accusations against you. The best way to deal with such editors is not to ignore them, but to take action against them. --Inahet 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you deal with it, but if he does go way over the line, please do notify the admins. I don't think anyone should suffer this kind of abuse. --Inahet 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

the troll
I know, he stalked me too. I unceremoniously issued two rangeblocks, let's see if that buys us peace until 11:05 UTC tomorrow :) dab (&#5839;) 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

bragging
It's not about bragging, its about highlighting how well developed the science was, thats why it is in. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Satanic Verses
Hi Zora, I think you were once involved in the article on The Satanic Verses, right? I've finally expanded that article with a plot summary, want to have a look? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sushmita Sen in Main Aisa Hi Hoon
Hi, Zora, I noticed you removed the comment about Main Aisa Hi Hoon in Sushmita Sen's article. I've seen both movies, I am Sam, and Main Aisa Hi Hoon and think it's pretty obvious that MAHH is a remake. I didn't meant to make it sound like an accusation or as something to play down Sushmita Sen's ability as an actress, merely to state the fact that Sen had the Michelle Pfeiffer role in the movie. Can't we let it in? --Plumcouch 21:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Zora, thanks for your swift reply. Don't worry - it takes more to discourage me and I have too much fun here to just leave this place. As to your reply: I will check out this Bollywood and plagiarism article and maybe, I can contribute. Yours, truly, --Plumcouch 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove
I don't think you should remove those facts because they are great achievements. Having a foreign audience of 50,000 people watch your movies with subtitles says a lot about global cinema coming together. The facts that she was on the power list is a tremendous honor. we shouldn't remove that too. You need to put something on the page. It is so bland, it simply talks about seven famous movies of her and that too in no details. It's so boring. If you keep adding facts, one day, we will have a lot of information to divide the text into sections and make it detailed. Lastly, Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke are Rani's major films post Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, you can't just leave a blank for four years after KKHH and put Saathiya. People want to know what was going on in these four important years. I only highlighted 2000. Also, I'm not trying to copy a format from other Indian actresses which only have four major movies talked about on their pages. I am looking at Lindsay Lohan's page and making it a bit like that. It will take a while but only if you cooperate. I don't mind if you restructure the sentences but don't take away important facts unless useless. Thanks. --shez15 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts
I put only power list on Rani's page. I didn't add no.1 actress. The power list also applies to a filmfare award. The no.1 position on the power list gets you the Filmfare Power Award. First it was Amitabh Bachchan and Shahrukh Khan, and then, Shahrukh next year again and Yash Chopra this year. But i just put rani was the female on these lists. Aishwarya Rai was on the first list and then disappeared. And then it was Rani on the next two years as the only female in a male-dominated industry. A big achievement. I simply put power list since it relates to filmfare awards and it's not journalistic since the no.1 position gets an award. it's not a biased poll rather a researched and highly prestigious verdict. And i didn't say HDJPK and CCCC were hits, just put average and i put commercial success because they were popular movies back in the day and a lot of people went to see it so the movie gained money but didn't win awards or critical acclaim nor a status of the biggest hits. But what are we going to put in the four years gap after kuch kuch hota hai. if i write a detailed analysis like i did for breakout role, you revert it. i just thought if i put facts you wouldn't revert them. you know once we gather a lot of facts, we can divide the text and make it detailed only if you let my edits stay there. it is a process. i can't make a Lindsay Lohan page in one day. I also put everything in order for now. You guys put temptation part after 2005 which is ridiculous. And also, i don't know about a hundred years but for right now, she is the most hyped actress in Bollywood and will be so for the next five years. so let us inform foreigners on her and that is why i put the 50, 000 people fact, since it invites global audience to the attraction and favors Bollywood viewers. Lindsay Lohan won't be remembered after 50 years, but still she has a detailed page. So what you said earlier doesn't make sense. Don't remove my facts. Thanks! --shez15 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Zora how are you? Did you notice the changes Sholay went through lately? Its in a good shape. And more resourced inputs, and also enhancing the section "Production" can lift it at least to a Good article standard. Your help is sought. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That was really severe copyediting. However, imo, bulleting should be avaoided except in the section of Trivia. Also the legacy reads a bit short, given the huge cultural impact the film had in India. That can be incorporated in Response though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! You live in Honolulu. That must be a great place. Yes, divorcing his wife has probably reflected in Amie's fan number. and he is aging...potato-ish :). By the way, do you think it's time we gave away more hints of the ending in Rang De Basanti artilce? And we'll try to give more info on roles in Sholay soon. And again, the argument will continue in India, pre-1947 India etc. :)Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)