User talk:Zora/2005archive4

Template:Islam

What is going on here... If you like at how it is now it shows horribly garish colors... and Allah was removed and replaced by Abu Bakr and Ali... and somehow Heraclius believes Allah is biased because.... oh, just read the talk page please... I don't want to edit this because this is just inexplicable to me how one could think either of those changes are good. I want to know what you think about them while I try to pretend wikipedia isn't an uphill battle. gren グレン 20:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That is better... it's not my cup of tea but I can't use the word garish... I was happy with what we had... I'm not sure why it was changed?... but, thanks for making it better :) Yah, I'm not too knowledgeable about Shi'ism specifics soo.... and.... well, I agree with what you said. For the Shia bias... they are less important in the scheme of Islam... it's just true... and.... since the five pillars don't contradict it just seems silly. Also, I think Allah should be linked... far more important than Ali or Abu Bakr... and then I liked at the Sahaba article which links to the Shia and Sunni rankings... oh man. Anyways... I'm sure it will all work out. Thanks. gren グレン 04:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey tita!

Born & Bred: Honolulu. Studying far, far away at moment but back home nxt yr. Yay! Folks live in Honolulu, hope to work in family real estate business and then maybe go to grad school after dat. I am going through homesickness this week, I'll get over it. Thanks for the msg. Coqsportif 23:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A.R.Rahman

Regarding my revert, you're right that the original wording was clumsy. Thanks for the warning - it wasn't necessary though. Ambarish 10:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, the original wording "he continues to work out of there" wasn't mine, unlike what you seem to think. I didn't revert because you were editing "my" prose, but because I thought the edit was misleading. Just a clarification. Ambarish 10:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:WivesMuhammad

You might know more about this subject than I do from your work with some of them... and, well. Germen added successive titles like Muhammads wives and sex slaves, Wives and Concubines of Muhammad, and Muhammads wives and right hand possessions eventually settling on a concubine one... I removed the title completely which is not ideal but, a title is not truly necessary since if you read the articles of those women it will link them somehow. I think this is all ludicrous because it's on Muhammad's marriages and such... which should be harmonized with the template... but.... I'd rather not encourage them to edit anything. What do you think about this since it's a little frustrating having to deal with that. gren グレン 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I saw Are secondary sources preferred to primary sources? on Slim's talk page... I know I've commented on this when Zeno et al. try and interpret hadith... saying that you shouldn't be interpretting (and I've probably said use too) primary sources... I'm not sure of your exact problem but it's not correct in my estimation to have users interpretting hadith and calling it Islam... because, that's what the scholars did and they always had disclaimers on hadith saying that one must be well versed to interpret. gren グレン 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Unwanted Vandalism

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --80.47.176.203 20:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Zora you may feel the edit is irrevelent but that is your opinion. If you want to add myths do so. Andycjp 2nd September 2005

Al Andalus

Looking for a third party's opinion on the revert war at Al Andalus, wondering if you could drop on by? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

new template

Care to comment my creation?

--Striver 22:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Economy and Bollywood

Dear Zora,

Thanks for your response. I apologise if the article isn't clear enough about its purpose, which I will fix. Its purpose is to document how the changes in economic policies have been reflected in Bollywood films. For instance, the dam in Mother India was a result of labour and capital intensive methods and was constructed from the top-down, a product of Nehru's planning. But in Swades, a small dam was built by the hero, without much help from the govt. and the film doesn't regard the market reforms/capitalist class as the root of all evil. I plan to list out the plots of such films (not doing any analysis/research) and list out the economical policy of the country during the period, the film was released.

As far as the POV of the articles are concerned:

• I can remove the theme column, since it is already covered by the details column and on second thoughts, it does seem POV.
• About the two films that I added, you are right, its about economic ideology rather than sound economics, but then, they reflect the economic policies and thinking of the country during that period. The POV here, is the films' not mine.

Feel free to flame/discuss/clarify further. regards. pamri 12:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam

Can you please take a look at this article? It's suffering from the same Nickbee style of long quotes and self-interpretations.Heraclius 18:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shia ranking of the Sahaba

Hey, I know you worked on Sahaba after Striver's edits... so, I figured this might interest you. Striver is screaming it's the mandatory deletion of anything Shia... but, it's also for the Sunni article... that was just less fleshed out and didn't use ranking as much so it was less important. Just be careful and see they delete isn't exactly te goal of that... but, just to perge the article of its changing qualitative description of Shia's into striver's quantative ranking. In any case I think it'd be worthwhile to vote on if you have the time. gren グレン 16:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, O_o in any case could you look at it and tell me if I'm justified? gren グレン 21:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ghazw

Hey, I just ran across this article today and I was wondering what you thought. (I saw you had come across Futuh) It seems kind of scathing... but, not in the bad sense that we've been getting around here lately... I thought that some word choices were inopportune and the portrayal of Jihad in some instances smacks of "Jihad is war"... but, on the whole I didn't really get the sense negative sense I did from Islamophilia or other horrible articles. It's just with things like purposes of conquest, plunder, or the capture of slaves it doesn't sound like it is at all trying to represent it the way Muslims would. I just want your thoughts... if like dab (and me to an extent) you're taking a break from too much discussion of Islamic articles just drop a quick note saying so if you will. gren グレン 23:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite understandable. Good luck, and hopefully it won't be permanent teeth grinding. You don't want TMJ. gren グレン 07:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan

i have left some notes in the talk page for this article; not trying to be unfriendly at all, just trying to help make wikipedia a bit better :) please feel free to comment, and edit!

List of founders of major religions

Greetings. I want to assure you that I am not advertising any guru when I made the edit you reverted. I just wanted to include an estimate of the date of Moses' life by a notable professor of Near Eastern languages and literature from the University of Michigan. Regards, Fire Star 23:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers! Fire Star 23:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Abu Bakr/Islam

Okay, I'll look at the former... the latter I don't find so bad... then I realized it is right at the top of the article. Everything else is fundamental. I have never heard of Islam anything but monotheist... it is undoubtedly Abrahamic... and following the Qur'an is following sharia... so... but Islamism isn't inherent. Normally I wouldn't even question the putting the Dome of the Rock on the article... but... considering some other things... all I can think about now is its to be controversial. Am I paranoid O_O? In any case, there's no talk area on Talk:Islam so I made one. I'm reading Abu Bakr now and I'll post on that talk page... there is too much crap on wikipedia to keep straight... I'm not totally against putting Islam [articles] in a stasis field for the next five years. gren グレン 13:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Cronies, translations and links

Hi Zora. Grenavitar has already reverted the changes. What's the story with Zeno and his cronies ? I've recently been involved in an argument with Zeno regarding the nature of jinns (that's the most profound argument I've been involved in here on WP!) - you might want to take a look at the bottom of the Islam talk page. I initially thought Zeno had some good points, but I soon realised that I was wrong in that regard. Regarding the Arabic translations of the words, I don't mind if we include or leave out all of them (but must be consistent); however, if we include them, then there should be links to those pages, otherwise it is fairly pointless. Actually, I'll try this out right now, and see how it looks. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Islam

Hi Zora, thanks for your note. I wasn't sure whether you wanted me to get involved as an editor or admin. If I become involved as an editor, it means I can't take admin action in relation to those articles, at least not for a while. Also, I'm not sure I know enough about them to be useful as an editor, though I do know that this: " ... the English word Islamism has been coined to describe the political aspects of Islam" is nonsense, and thankfully I see it's gone now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I left this [1] for our anonymous friend. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia - oops !

Hi. What a goof that was! I think perhaps I spend too much time on WP... Yes, we could call it the Hijaz or something like that, but it might be better just to revert it (if that hasn't already been done). ---Mpatel (talk) 11:14, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Zora seems to have sided with the mainstream Muslims

Everytime i put something noteworthy and important regarding the Quran-only Muslims beliefs which obviously also fall under the category of Islam, Zora removes them saying im promoting myself. What im doing is stating facts and giving clear cut reasons while trying to avoid any possible bias. This however doesnt seem to be the case on her side and that of the mainstream "Muslims" of whom even some of them would go as far as to kill anyone who is an apostate IN THEIR VIEW. Now note this is important, IN THEIR VIEW because in reality i consider myself a real and true Muslim following Quran Alone and hence God Alone without any hypocritical innovations. In my view those "Muslims"are the kaafirs(unbelievers/rejectors). So as i said some of them would go and kill someone only if he says that he doesnt wanna mention Muhammad's name after God's or become so angry that theyd beat him up. They are obsessed with Prophet Muhammad as a human not as much as regarding the message he brought from God and this is the real problem. That's why we call them Muhammadans or those who worship Muhammad instead of God. A simple example. God in the Quran told the angels to prostrate before Adam. A simple question. Who were they worshipping??? GOD or Adam? Obviously the First(and the Last) i.e. GOD and not Adam. They obeyed God's command and hence worshipped Him only. Now the "Muslims" do it the other way around. They believe in God because of Muhammad hence they are worshipping Muhammad. See this now how Satan has successfully turned the truth 180 degrees. It happens all the time so please id like you to reflect on this for a moment. GOD Bless! user:idmkhizar

Back!

And still in one piece, alhamdulillah.

Anything interesting going on? BrandonYusufToropov 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Remember that scene in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK?

(Han blind, bound, to his fellow hostage Luke:)

Han: How are we doing?

Luke: About the same as always.

Han: That bad, huh?

===

Family is fine, all is well on the home front, alhamdulillah. Please make duas from there in the no-man's land.

)

So what should I look at first, do you think? BrandonYusufToropov 14:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-added ON reference on Muhammad article

I have replaced the reference that you removed from the Muhammad article. I used it to add considerable content to the site and, therefore, it must remain on the page as a reference. Please see the history for details. Uriah923 17:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey!

Reed? Really? That's where I am right now! I haven't come across too many Reedies on Wikipedia, so aloha to you! Dmcdevit·t 23:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I know, I know! That's what everyone keeps telling me. But I'm just going to put on my blinders, learn all the (possibly useless) stuff I can, and face the consequences when (if) I get to the real world. :) Sometimes I think maybe I could stay in the make-believe world of learning useless stuff all the time if only I could become a professor. :) We'll see. Incidentally, I grew up right next to Berkeley (heard of Lafayette?) and both my parents went there. Small world... (Guess I'll go back to reading about Ming China now.) Dmcdevit·t 02:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

You bitter old man! Shall I hang myself once I get out into the real world or just get it over with now? :) I prefer to think of it as more of a unemployed PhD, er, working together- er- match. But really, my mom majored in politial science with minors in women's studies, linguistics and Spanish (could you imagine a less saleable combo?). Then she got her masters in accounting, and then in library science. And what's her real job now? Doing software for a big construction corporation. It's a good thing I'm taking a computing class now; that way I'll be sure I'm not going to end up working in computers! Oh well, my sister's getting her masters degree in social work right now; I guess we're just a hopeless bunch. It's still fun though. And there's the interloping part, that's great. Although scurrilous is a bit strong... I'm more of an innocuous lurker. Of course, that's all assuming I survive Reed, anyway. And now both of the Reedies I've met on WP never finished there (do you know JesseW?). Well I thank you for that vigorous advice (and foreboding) I'm certainly taking it to heart. Oh yeah, and <enter actual Wikipedia discussion here> that ON guy is annoying me, too. Dmcdevit·t 06:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, woman, man, what's the difference? Actually, now that I think about it, you called me a young man without my ever giving you an indication as to my gender (I don't think). Sheesh, this ON spammer is really prolific. I've now spent more than an hour of my life cleaning it up all over Wikipedia. And he seems to think now he should delete actual article content since he can't put in his spam. AHH! I need to study! Thanks for this discussion, it was really enlightening and actually a stress-reliever (and you're in a unique position to probably understand better than most the amount of stress considering it's my first week here). I'm trying to cut down on the Wikipedia...:) Dmcdevit·t 23:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

:o I didn't realize I was that much of a slacker. And I already don't interact with real people (well, you're real... I think) because of both studies and Wikipedia... I was out of contact for a few days when I moved here and I learned something chilling: It keeps going! There's an edit every few seconds. And if I stop, no one else stops. If I could just pause it it would be so much easier to let go. Dmcdevit·t 23:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, "sensible" thanks. I think I'm going to do some editing over the weekend in my free time and then cut it off cold turkey for at least all of next week so I can devote that time to studies. Some loose ends to tidy up right now, like I'm nomming Splash for adminship tomorrow if you care to vote, and this spam thing (I think I'm making progress with this one but at least they all stopped so we can talk this out. If you don't mind, see if you can help at all.) Ideally I will only be editing on the weekend in free time, but I haven't shown great self-control with respect to Wikipedia before... :) So thanks, and if I'm gone all of the sudden on Sunday night, you'll have to explain to everyone how it was your fault. And if it means anything coming from someone who's apparently the same age as your daughter, your quite the admirable 'Pedian yourself. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

On a (not) related note, since your saying we'd be losing a sensible admin trigered this in my brain, is there any particular reason why you aren't an admin? I can't believe no one's ever asked you before. I've actually seen lots of your work pop up on my watchlist before, since I have several Islam-related articles watchlisted because of the frequent (gross) vandalism. And, I just looked it up, you've been here since February last year. (That's longer that me!) What do you say? Can I nominate you? Dmcdevit·t 23:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ever hear of a guy named Rick? :) Ah well, if you don't want to, I guess you don't have too. Two more quick notes about it, though. First of all, it really is no big deal. You could go on editing in your normal capacity. And second, I'm 4-for-4 so far on admin noms (Uncle G, Spangineer, and now Beland and Splash, both shoo-ins). You sure? :) Dmcdevit·t 23:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I wish you luck in all of that. I guess we shall cut back together. :) Dmcdevit·t 23:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright in Iran

Thanks for supporting me. BTW, if someone claimed Iranian-copyrights-don't-count again, you can now safely refer them to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Iran. We now have a quote from Jimbo himself. roozbeh 11:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Refusenik (Muslim)

Hi, Zora. Thanks for improving that stub. BTW, I wasn't its creator, my single edit were was minimal. I don't remember ever editing Muslim, so it seems you have mixed me up with someone else. Otherwise, I agree with you on all points, especially on keeping NPOV. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Clothing origin

I repeat what I said in April: "A view held by so many deserves a passing mention, at least." I'm not trying to state it as fact, but as a common belief. Per WP:NPOV, religious POVs deserve mention - not equal mention, but mention nonetheless.

How about something like "Many Christians and Jews believe the account of Genesis, which states" etc.

I apologize if it seems like I'm just jumping in and out of an article you've obviously put a lot of time into. I forgot about the debate in April, and began again today when I saw another user adding a (inappropriately worded and placed) mention of Genesis. DDerby | Talk 22:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey... if the difference is that one section I don't have a big problem with it... I do think more or less "origin myths" should have mention... although not in as concrete terms as that section does. I don't think most modern Christians (at least Catholics) believe that, but it is of interest... and, it shouldn't be portrayed as if the clothing itself is central to the story. Before I comment do you think such myths deserve no mention or what? gren グレン 06:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Succession

Hi, I'm looking at it... haven't commented, sorry -- I just went back to school and I'm taking 6 instead of five classes and 3, 300 leve, 2, 400 level and 100 level... which, if you look at my past semesters (stuff listed on my user page)... at least means I must go to most every class whereas before I could skip a lot more... sorry. gren グレン 06:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Made some edits on succession article ...

Excellent stuff!

On another topic, I don't know how you'll feel about | this, but I hope you'll take a look. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 09:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Tupenu

Zora, I fixed the captions for the photos in the Tupenu article, you had them backwards.

User:IP4240207xx 05:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: You need to archive your talk page, it is getting to big!

• You first create a link to a new page for the archive material. This I have done for you, at the top of this page. NOTE: If you don't like what I named your archive pages, you might want to change them first, before you cut-&-paste. Next copy the entries you want on that archive page. I did yours by date. Some people do it by topic. Say "bioarchive", "geoarchive", "historyarchive", etc. You do it how you like. Date is the most common. If you have a lot of talk going on, some users have to do "talk2005Jan-Mar", "talk2005Apr-Jun", etc. I don't think you need to go that far. Now for the 2005 page you can copy the entries from JAN 1st-to-JUN 30th for now, then sometime next March, do JUL 31st-to-DEC 31st. I recommend you always leave about a two month lag time to easily view and work with recent entries. So, I would click "edit this page" at the top of this page. Find the first entry and then "scroll+drag" until you find the last entry for 2004; then do a "control+cut" (ctrl+X ; control-copy&paste [ctrl+C] if it makes you feel safer); click "Save page"; click on the link to new archive page; then do ctrl+v to paste (or edit paste) the text in. Repeat for the data from Jan 1st until how far you want to go. (If you do copy&paste, you now have to re-edit this page and delete the text entries that you have copied to the archive page.) Hope this helps. User:IP4240207xx

• • My cheek is wet from that smooch. I see you lived in Portland. How, and when, did you like that? I lived in Clackamas for a spell. IP4240207xx 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Now why would you think I wouldn't know where Beaverton was? I lived in Clackamas for 13-years. Hey, your not that old.

Archive Pages

WOW! You moved 100 topic entries and you still have 80 left. I try to keep mine no more than 50. If the page gets to big, it will bomb when you edit. Happy archiving!

Courageous

Popped up on my watchlist, and I saw a major POV change and deleting a whole section, looked at the talk page, and saw no prior consensus, so I reverted. I hadn't realized your previous edit was a first revert, or even that there was a conflict going on, and not just the usual on Islam articles... Might want to watch out for a strawman sockpuppet, as even most pious believers can manage a semblance of understanding of NPOV (and not quote scripture as an argument for how to act on an encyclopedia). But I'm on a WikiBreak remember? I'm trying only to come back for the RFAs... :) Hope you are well. Dmcdevit·t 21:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Urdu

Hi,

I see you've been involved in the revert wars at Hindi, Urdu or Hindustani. I believe there is much more to these changes than initially meets the eye and I would appreciate it if you could add evidence against this user and aliases at User:Sukh/Revert_War_Evidence. I'm compiling this for a RFC. Thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 09:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

ON spam - Uriah

Hi, I hope you don't mind a request, but I need your help. Uriah is up to his typical, try to save links to ON at all costs, and is spreading the conversation over a few different articles to avoid the opposition. If you could just give your thoughts on the following Talk:After Virtue, Talk:Routing, Talk:Comparison of operating systems, Talk:ITunes, etc. You may have to check his contributions in case he tries to spread this over every article, which he seems to plan to. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 19:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Every once in a while if you have a chance, check around to see if ON links keep getting added. It's quiet now, but I have a feeling he won't give up. - Taxman ^Talk 20:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Muslim

Hi Zora. Good job. The article looked crap indeed. I hope people would agree about the current version. I think the article should be a reference to Islam and not a podium. I only think that the introduction is still looking and sounding too heavy for ears and eyes. We'll try to make it good for stomach. Cheers -- Svest 21:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Maria al-Quibtiyya (Maria the Copt)

hello Zora,

thank you for contacting me. Well I encountered the article "Maria al-Quibtiyya (Maria the Copt)" by chance. At the bottom I saw that it wasn't categorised in any way. Considering the other wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) were all categorised as "Muslim women" obviously she could not be put under that category. I was thinking about creating a new category for "Copt", not sure about that though. Therefore the only one I thought best was "Christian Interfaith relations". There is another article about a Nestorian monk who also encountered the Prophet that is under that category. If you believe there is a better place, by all means I am always open to suggestions, this shall be no point of great contention. with kind regards Gryffindor 20:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am confused. Was she now a Copt or a Muslima? Because there seems to be disagreement on this. Muslim women as a category would be fine as well, however I am inclining to start a new Category for Copts or List in that case.. Gryffindor 23:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes apparently by one source she converted to Islam . However, how does she "enter history as a Muslim" and not also as a Copt? I mean the name (Maria the Copt) alone says it, doesn't it? Gryffindor 23:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Are the relationships that bad? By adding her as a Copt I certainly don't want to cause any religious tension. I will try to find a Coptic User, maybe they can share some insights into this. I will leave this article for the moment, however if you have no issue with the creation of a new category for Copts, then I think we have settled this question to a mutually satisfactory solution? Gryffindor 00:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Aisha

I highly dislike the notion that articles can be protected --under claims of maintaining a "subtle balance" (i.e. "appeal to security"). In case you hadnt noticed, this is a wiki. My changes were substantive improvements over the previous version, which at least needed a cleanup tag at top. I happened to have more time. I will restore my changes. Any actual changes which may help the article will be welcome. Apologies if I appear curt with you, but Ive little patience for people who miss the entire point, fail to judge edits on merits, and use reverts instead of edits. -St|eve 16:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ive rolled back your changes to Aisha - your rewrite used a narrative "questions" style, which is improper for the encyclopedic form --just say what the controversy is, offer some context, etc. You also removed much material which was part of that section before I edited it --All I really added was an introductory sentence, and a little context regarding marriageable age. I would be happy to discuss the changes further. Sincerely, St|eve 16:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Lomilomi massage

Zora, when you have a chance (no hurry on this) can you take a look at Lomilomi massage? I want to expand the page, but I also want to stay on track, so your critical eye is appreciated. Please make any changes you feel are necessary, or offer suggestions on the talk page. I know you are pretty busy, so thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 11:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You're a fantastic editor, and you have every right to be proud of your work on the Nordhoff text. Let me know when your book comes out so I can buy it. --Viriditas | Talk 06:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi. Please refrain from speculating about editors' motives, phobias, etc., in edit summaries. Regards, El_C 07:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Prophet of Islam

To be honest, I'm okay with "prophet of Islam" as an alternative to "Islamic prophet". It sounds a little hokey, but I don't think it must be interpreted as asserting anything supernatural or divine about Muhammad or his experiences. There may be a reasonable aesthetic objection to it, but not enough of one to get me waging a wikijihad against it, as I would against "Prophet Muhammad". Regards, Babajobu 13:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what's POV about using "prophet of Islam," as there is a page on Wikipedia entitled "prophets of Islam," but thanks for leaving a comment explaining why you changed it. Emiellaiendiay 19:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not spam

Hi Zora

The sunna website is not mine and it is not spamming. What i am pasting are legitimate links. A lot of what is being propagated on some of the pages are one sided and the links are one sided. The sunna links provide a balance. Please stop removing them even if they represent a different view than yours. Shafi3i 03:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Hi Again

i have read your advice, thank you. I am trying to have a fair share by writing and editing many articles but please stop removing the external links i paste. A lot of external links are one sided and provide one point of view. Have you read the external link in Shahada ? it said " He should, as a practice, dissociate himself completely from the unbelievers and refuse to be influenced by them, both in worldly and religious matters." How come that we "should" as a practice to dissociate ourselves from non believers? and how come we should refuse to get influenced by them in worldy matters? So we stop going to the universities here? and stop working with them ? Muslims in the west work with them like i do and my supervisor is a non muslim woman too. This link provides the one view of wahhabi about such matters. I pasted another link which provides a more balanced view about this matter. I read the external links and sometimes i really get disappointed.

I am spending a lot of time on another section in wikipedia and i am trying to have a fair share here and to contribute in authoring a lot of articles. Let me contribute to the english section and let me have a pleasant time and i assure you that if you keep hunting down the links i provide will greatly discourage me.

And about the grand plan of imposing the website. I pasted around 5-6 links in five-six different articles. How would it be a grand plan of imposing?

Thank you

Shafi3i 04:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Hi Again

you said "but linking your sect's site to as many Islamic articles as you can is linkspamming" i agree that this is one definition of link spamming but you are not being fair in categorizing what i have done as link spamming that falls under this definition. I have not linked the site to as many article as i can. They were 5-6 links of different subjects each linked to the relevant article in wiki. Please stop distorting the truth. Shafi3i 05:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Note;

Do not threaten me with adminstrators. I can talk to them too. Shafi3i 05:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Zora, what is the problem here and which articles specifically were 'spammed'? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection

My, my. What have you been up to tonight. I've protected your user page since every time that anon gets reverted and blocked he comes back with another IP. This is intended only as a very temporary measure. Sorry about all this crap. I guess it's the Qur'an vandal as well. Dmcdevit·t 05:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay it's been half an hour and the vandalism stopped on Qur'an 30 minutes ago as well, so I guess it was that vandal's bed time. Your user page is now unprotected. You should definitely check out the history of Qur'an when you get back online though for a tribute to WP's self-correcting nature! :) Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Urgh. Hm, by some twist of fate the anon came back to vandalize Qur'an just as I was typing the above message. After two more reverts I vprotected Qur'an. I would be on the look out here, but it (vandals aren't people) didn't return here, I didn't reprotect. Now that you mention it, my first hum paper was due yesterday! I've been sitting here with me Chinese history book in my hand most of the day catching up on the reading I neglected because of it, and just took a break to WP after finishing a chapter. I was actually out of action for nearly all of last week too, and will be starting in a few seconds as well, :) I was really about to get off when this popped up. (PS, not another linkspammer! I never would have guessed that Islam-related articles were such a hot spam target.) Dmcdevit·t 06:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Impression

I do not know why i was under the impression that you are a Muslim and a Woman. Ok. That impression was wrong. Now i understand. Since we agreed on prevent bias then i think we can work together, time permitting. But i insist that what i was doing was not link spamming. Shafi3i 17:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

ok. Things are clear from my side. Since you are bossy i will be waiting for your orders. :P Shafi3i 03:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC).

Demographics of Islam

Hi Zora! I just noticed that you are working on an article called "Demographics of Islam", and re that article, there is a couple of things that I'd like to mention to you. The first thing is that the figures from Bangladesh of course is quite inaccurate.. The other thing is that I wanted to make sure that you have seen this article, that was created some time ago: Islam by country. I thought that you might find some of the content of that article useful, and that it might help you to aviod any kind of double work. Of course it doesn't have the Sunni-Shi'a-Ibadi figures, but I just wanted to be sure that you already knew that it is there. -- Karl Meier 11:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

And now that I am talking to you anyway, could you please consider deleting this painting: Image:Miraj2.jpg. I added the {{nowcommons}} tag several weeks ago, but nothing has happend yet. The new version that I have replaced the old version at commons with, is in my opinion much better than the version that is currently used in the article. -- Karl Meier 12:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Shab-e-baraat

Wondering if you can help in any way with Shab-e-baraat. Also, thinking of making a template with each of the months in Islam, and then making an entry for these months which gives a brief overview of the religious events, festivals, etc that occours in these months.. Good Idea/bad Idea? --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Idea in acton

That Muslim month idea.. well I've already started on it, I've onlt began with Muharram thus far, so can you have a look and tell me how it can be improved? Thanks! --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Najd

I know virtually nothing about the history of Najd (which has generally been on the fringes of civilisation, and as such of comparatively little interest to chroniclers, Arab or non-Arab), but whenever I need to do some Arabic-language research, http://www.alwaraq.com/ is my first port of call; it has a wide variety of medieval histories and geographies (and a few post-medieval as well.) The nasab books - genealogies of the Arabian tribes - might also be a source of information (also found on alwaraq.) In addition, I know that a number of Saudi scholars have gotten to work on the history of the area, examining such sources as graffiti and oral traditions in addition to the obvious written sources. Bruce Ingham might bear examining on the oral history sources. - Mustafaa 10:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ever came forward with one clear evidence that the memoirs of Mr hempher is a forgery. The facts of the british spy was mentioned by religeous scholars who died more than 150 years ago who authored books refuting Ibn Abdul wahhab like al Mina7 Al wahbiya fil radi 3alal al wahhabiya. <-- Good book also for the history of najd.

Add those books if you like to your folder.

1- Al Sawa3iq Al ilahiya fil radd 3ala al wahhabiya. It was authored by sulayman bin abdul wahhabi the brother of Mohammad bin abdul wahhab. Mohammad ( may Allah give him what he deserves) sent a person to assasinate him while he is praying but God saved him.

2 - Al Durar Al saniya fil raddi 3ala al wahahbiya.

3 - Misba7b Al Anam wa jala2 al thalam fil raddi 3ala bida3 al najdiy.

The three aforementioned books are excellent sources about the history of najd but very detailed and at an expert level.

If you would like more just ask. Shafi3i 04:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

You might like Patricia Crone, ‘Ninth-Century Muslim Anarchists’, Past and Present: a Journal of Historical Studies, no. 167, 2000, pp. 3-28, about the Najdiyya (an anarchist Kharijite sect). Unlike most Muslim sources, she seems to rather like them. - Mustafaa 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Opinion

hi, I request you to please give your opinion about Shweta lal. Thanks.

Bhangra

Liar! I have never editted it. But, you make a good point and I put it under my watch because you are definitely right... there's no apparent rhyme or reason (besides his view) as to why he ordered the way he did. I don't know too much about Bhangra, I get my news when this kid I know shows me videos of the national competition and I stare with a lack of understanding at the dancing. gren グレン 05:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[[Talk:Caliph#{{Islam}} for each "caliph"]]

Could you look at this and give me your opinion -- it's about using {{Islam}} for each caliph from Ummayad to Ottoman. gren グレン 08:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islam

Hey. How's it going? Can you take a look at talk:Islam under section "beliefs of Muslims". This anon proxy editor fails to understand Jesus' second coming in Islam. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should calm down

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you.

Please do not engage in edit wars. This is regarding the edit war between you, User:Anonymous editor and User:70.21.180.97 regarding the insertion of some controversial comments by User:70.21.180.97 about Muhammed's marriage to Aisha on the Wikipedia article, Muhammad. Thank you. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Aisha

Er, Zora. What is POV about saying "final prophet of Islam"? That is Muhammad (pbuh) position in Islam, regardless of what others think. It is factual that it is his position, not opinion. Please reply, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also see Talk: Muhammad for my response. Btw, the pedophilia anon IP was the same adolescent which I was trying to get through to on Talk: Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Mughal-E-Azam

I won't disagree that Mughal-E-Azam is a noteworthy movie. However, we must keep in mind that we are writing for Wikipedia here, which is not a place for movie reviews. Some liked it and others hated it. There's no movie that absolutely everyone loves.

The main problem is this paragraph: "The film is excellent on many counts. The acting is top-notch, the score, by Naushad, is memorable, the singing and dancing are well-done, and the cinematography (by R.D. Mathur) is stylish. The film evokes the glorious days of the Mughal empire, with its lavish palaces, Persian-style gardens, jeweled costumes, and courtly dialogue (in poetic, Persian-influenced Urdu)."

I'm sure there are people who feel the acting isn't "top-notch," that the score isn't "memorable," and that the days of the Mughal empire were not "glorious." (I sense something of a pro-Persian bias in this, as well, since the Persian influences on the gardens and on Urdu are noted twice.)

Frankly, if you just remove that paragraph and add a spoiler warning earlier (or, change the plot outline so that you don't give away the ending), the rest of the article is fine. --Hnsampat 13:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Troubled Waters

I seem to be on the outs with Anonymous Editor. In the last couple of days he has been making edits that I feel are pietistic and POV-pushing. I revert them, explain why I did so, try to make nice, post on his talk page, and he just reverts back, and THEN SOME, just to show me who's boss. I am now the secular enemy, who must be defeated in the cause of Islam. I suppose this means that I'm doing OK at being neutral, if I can be an Islamofascist bitch AND an enemy of Islam. However, it's discouraging to be on the outs with AE, whom I had off-handedly classified as a "reasonable" editor. I am reassessing that judgement.

I really don't LIKE fights. I often find myself in them, but I really prefer collaborations. It's lovely when a bunch of folks can work together to make something that's better than any one of them could do individually. Can you help us do so? Zora 23:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, Zora you are taking this way overboard. I was not fighting you and I never called you any of those things. I do think you are neutral, but taking it so much to the extreme in articles where Islamic beliefs are being mentioned very scarcely is falling right into the hand of the anti-islamic editors who use the guise of being "secularists". I don't think you are a secular enemy nor do I think you are not a "reasonable" editor. This was the case in the Muhammad article. As I said before, the prolonged material in the Battle of the Trench section can go into the battle article; it does not need to be in the Muhammad article. I wasn't trying to be the boss; note the minor differences between your version and mine. [2] Perhaps Brandon will comment on this too. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiya

The arabic article about ibn taymiya is less biased than the usual stuff about him on internet but still in some parts making him a big shot. I am leaving somewhere outside the country for work and wont be back for a week or so, so i wont promiss something i can not deliver for now.

My personal opinion which is shared by many sunnni: Ibn Taymiyah is the most dangerous man on Islam in the last 700 years or so. But if i want to translate something i will be honest in my trasnlation. One of his most dangerous statements is that he believes that the kind of this world is eternal which is very close to atheism. The decres issued by Sultan Ibn Qalawoon the muslim ruler at that time really exposed how filthy and dangerous his beliefs are. do you believe that he liked the saying that God if he wanted he would have sat on the back of a fly? and he said Allah himself is above the throne and below the throne at the same time? As if he velieves that God is rubber-like? read his book "Sharh Hadith Al nuzool" page 264 and you will see exactly this statement. he made even the cow worshipers laugh at him.

Allah will give him what he deserves. Shafi3i 07:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC).

Muhammad, final prophet of Islam

I don't really have a problem with this as long as it's only used once per article. The key point for me is that it specifies that he is a prophet in Islam. If it said, "Muhammad, the final prophet", I would remove it immediately. Babajobu 10:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

You have joined the revert war on Criticism of Islam started by User:Anonymous Editor, siding with Anonymous Editor in deleting about 9000 bytes of content that I added. Consequently the article has been protected. You have not explained your reverts in the talk page of the article - I invite you to engage in discussion in the talk page now. -- Zeno of Elea 23:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib

Thank you for the clean-up you did in this article! It was much needed and a definitive improvement. Also: I have a question about a "missing"(?) granddaughter ..-would you care to take a look at Talk:Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib? Thanks, Huldra 00:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving comment from your main page

Zora, I don't know who you are and why you have created a Vendetta with me. You are NOT Indian and you don't speak Hindi. You are a moslem lady who lives in Hawai. Doesn't your religion teach you to be different from the disbelievers??? Then why are you so fascinated by Hindu Cinema. Why don't you come down to Bombay so we can show you how to really play Holi. Then you will understand that you shouldn't write about something you don't know. Thanks for the input!!--Harprit 03:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

(Zora, I took the liberty of moving this comment left on your main page to here. Hope that was the right thing to do. gren グレン 03:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC))

Ah, so I should see the film. I don't really get to the theater much but I'll try. I trust your recommendation... and if you want a sequel that badly. By the way User:Adamcaliph made a bunch of edits to Shia Imams, not really changing content (which I won't assert is NPOV in the first place... but didn't seem bad) but adding headers with the bad style of "His birth" instead of "Birth" and also adding "Persecution". I don't know about you but, it just seems to be an attemp to smash in the image of Shia being persecuted. I left a talk message saying Persecution will be noticed through the facts of what happened, not by us using words like that to elicit reactions. In any case, if you run into that... tell me what you think. Have a good day, Cheers. gren グレン 12:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Demographics of Islam

No problem, you are welcome, though I already mentioned the problem with the Bangladesh figure to you a few days ago ;-). Anyway, it's a nice article. Most recently, I've been working on the population template at the Kurdish people article myself, so I know it takes quite a lot of time and effort to make such an article. -- Karl Meier 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora, just wondering, isn't this article a repeat of Islam by country? It's still good work though. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Problems revert/POV abuser

Zora you seem to know quite a lot about south-Asia.

I have been having revert/edit wars with user:Idleguy on 2 articles. In both cases he refuses to think that there should be any other POV besides Indian and is inserting anti-Pakistani POV into the articles. Everytime I try to compromise and make his material more encyclopedic, he reverts it.

Please take a look at Terrorism in Kashmir where he is messing with the reason NPOV tag by adding "and a terrorist bias". By "terrorists" he is stereotyping Kashmiri separatists. See edit history for details.

Also take a look at Terrorism in Pakistan where he is inserting anti-Pakistani POV in every chance he can get.

I think he believes that wikipedia is an Indian nationalist newspaper.

Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert of Bollywood

Was your revert of Bollywood only concerned with problems from one edit by Harprit, 4 days earlier? If so, it would've likely been better to not revert all the other edits in that time, but simply remove the problem text. --Mairi 18:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

Hey. I just wanted to get your opinion (whenever you have time) on this article. I tend to be suspicious of what Zeno writes (I believe for good reason) so I read that. There are some parts in the theological criticism which bothered me... but, they weren't so bad even though they seemed to be making an assertion that the Qur'an can't work with science. Of course I think the modern view tends to be it's more allegorical. In any case, I haven't read it all but I was curious what you think... and maybe you know more about it than I do. Oh, it also seemed to be strongly supporting the belief that Dhul-Qarnayn is Alexander the Great... I have not really seen this to be true in what I know... however, it's safe to say I am not well versed in this. gren グレン 22:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't know you had done a version... or, possibly I saw it a while ago when I was in my busy-less-wiki state and didn't get back to in. I will look at it and we shall see what becomes of this all. Judging from past events I typically find your pieces to be more neutral and less attacking. Hopefully there won't be a revert war, but, as you said these things happen. gren グレン 03:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Farhanser recently requested that I look at this article. I am sorry to say that I am not very knowledgable on the issue, but I find Zora's version to be shorter, cleaner, more precise and more neutral than Zeno's. I propose that the article be replaced with Zora's version and any smaller edits can be done later. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Gilistan e Saadi

What I read was I think a complete Urdu translation of Gulistan & Bostaan . Other than 1-3 incidents , I didnt find much that U can call "filled with abnoxious anti-semite stuff" . Can U give story number , link or something , so that I could see where that anti semite stuff lies . May be what I read wasent a complete translation , but I really doubt that . Thanks . Farhansher 21:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Salafi

Zora, thanks for your patience. See Talk:Salafi AnonMoos 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islam and clothing

User:Mustafa h left you a message there hoping that you'd find it. I'm here to make sure you do. I commented -- you might want to as well. gren グレン 01:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Urdu

Hi Zora,

Looks like we're heading toward another revert war on Urdu. It's almost too petty to worry about, but I'm afraid it might snowball if people get aggravated. (Who cares whether we say there are 3 dialects or 4, since we list 4 regardless, and the 4th is qualified with a 'sometimes'?) I can't even remember who started it this time, but I think you reverted Justice's edit to what I wrote. I know it's annoying that Justice won't participate in any discussions there, and I can understand that you wouldn't want to waste your time with Harprit - do you think they're the same person? If not, why not write Justice on his talk page? (I haven't been around for this whole affair, so please clue me in if there's some reason you and Justice aren't speaking to each other.) As usual, no one has presented any evidence either way, and I certainly don't know anything other than what I dig up on the web. kwami 07:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hairpit

So, I was reading Islam and flat-earth theories and I see, "Islam does not imply that the world is flat, contradictory to popular belief. Many anti-muslims who are out there to prove that Islam is wrong bring this issue forth". I thought to myself... wow, Zora's off her rocker, I know this page was partially to move some of Zeno's stuff from the Dhul-... page but wow, she must really be reacting to the insulting Islamic sentiment. Then I saw that version wasn't you and reverted it. I haven't read the whole article but... just that first line is really really bad. I'll surely help you when I think you're correct... which is on Salafi and Bhangra and Flat-earth stuff so far... judging from what I'm reverting I'll probably agree with you on most things. This seems to be even worse than POV disputes with Zeno -- this is much more like vandalism (especially on your userpage). Oh, I did think the idea of removing a barn star was pretty funny. Hah. Oh well, have fun reading geology if that's what keeps you calm :) gren グレン 09:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Update. I have reverted them all except for Wahhabism and Bollywood. I really think those should be reverted but it's not the huge and blantant problems of the other articles so I didn't feel comfortable going right in and doing it. However, I do believe that your version is better on both of those articles. If this continues something more will have to be done it seems. gren グレン 09:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Film

Take a look at [3]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Bollywood

Regarding the Bollywood article, I have not yet had time to read through the article and figure out who's right and who's wrong. Nevertheless, your nemesis, I believe, just reverted for the fourth time within twenty four hours. For this reason, I have reverted back to your latest version and added a little warning on that user's page. I hope this doesn't get me in trouble. --Yamla 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Harprit for 24 hours for the violation. Zora, be careful with your reverting too. I know you've tried to discuss it on the talk page; have you asked for other opinions on the Indian noticeboard or Wikipedia:Third opinion? --Mairi 05:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll look at the article tomorrow morning, as I'm too tired right now to come to a good conclusion about it. It sounds like you have a good case for atleast an WP:RfC against him, particularly with the physical threats. You should also mention it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, so other admins can keep an eye out. --Mairi 06:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at my thoughts on Talk:Bollywood#My thoughts on the two versions; admittedly I don't know all that much about Bollywood, but I did give my opinion of most the contested parts (and a few more general ideas for the article). Also, please refrain from using edit summaries such as "Harprit attack" (regardless of what you think of the edits); try to find a more neutral wording. --Mairi 18:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Hi Zora, this is to thank you for your wonderful efforts on Bollywood. Previously it was on my watchlist but I removed it after seeing your great efforts in maintaining it. I also have Aishwarya Rai on my watch list and have seen you do a good job in reverting vandalism. hv just seen ur note on the India notice board - pl. be assured that I'd get to the bottom of this asap and will contribute my mite in preserving the sanctity of the page. p.s. I'm re-adding Bollywood to my watchlist. Thanks once again!! --Gurubrahma 06:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

India related links

--Gurubrahma 06:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ali Sina

Hi Zora. Can you please have a look at Ali Sina? A new user is inserting a violent anon comment (threat) from a website. Please refer to the discussion if you need more help. Cheers. P.S. You need some archiving to your talk page. Svest 21:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Islam and clothing

Harprit's edits seem to be a copyvio from http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=27304&dgn=4 which -- if reproduced in its entirety is no problem but it says we must faithfull reproduce it... which means we can't NPOV it. So, right on that basis his edits fail and you can take this up as an act of vandalism rather than a POV dispute. gren グレン 04:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder / The Film Identity

>you wrote... Hi Kgrr, you added this film to the DID page. There's a separate page for DID in the media (comics, novels, films, etc.). I forget the name of the page, but it's linked to the main DID article.

>I looked at the IMDB listing for the movie and it seemed to be a slasher film. Is it really DID related? That's why I didn't immediately move it to the other page; I wasn't quite sure why you'd added it. Zora 19:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

ok ... The Three Faces of Eve and Sybil are films in the list.

"Identity" is the story of ten strangers trapped in a dreary motel due to heavy rain and flooding. And, yes, the promotional materials cast it as a slasher film so that they don't give away the ending. Near the end of the movie, the viewer begins to catch onto what is going on after a slight twist in the plot. Rent the movie. I'd rather not blow the ending of the movie for you. Take a careful note of the court scenes at the beginning and later during the movie. It's definitely DID related and worth watching if you like Hitchcock style thrillers.

Konrad  kgrr ^talk 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Sari

Someone removed the external links and I'd like your opinion there before reverting (some) of the removed links. gren グレン 06:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, a lot happened just as I was posting :) Glad to see you at least know. gren グレン 06:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sari links

Zora,
Sorry to give you a heart attack. I had looked over the history and saw that there were active contributors. If you think I've cut too close to the bone, please do revert me, but I'd ask that you don't put the sales links back in.

As to the "how to" links, I generally operate under the assumption that if information is important enough to go into WP, it should have it's own article. I looked at the information on those pages and felt that, per the guidelines, it didn't belong on this page.

See, the system works, co-operation, etc!
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for my two cents on all of this. I think the wrapping guides are useful material as per Wikipedia:External links What should be linked to Section 5. I do agree that some are qustionable but advertising sites are advised against if they do not contradict a do, and it is, as of now, our only source of images for all of the styles. Zora, I do recommend that you make explicit what was referenced in the article so that under no circumstances will it be deleted as that would be plagiarism. gren グレン 06:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

al-qamariyah and ash-shamsiyah

In the Arabic grammar there are 14 consonants that the <l> in the article <al> must be pronounced as the first letter of the noun.

at-ta ath-tha ad-da adh-dha ar-ra az-za as-sa ash-sha aŠ-Ša aD-Da aT-Ta azh-zha an-na al-la

That's why you get 43 700 results with "az zubayr" and 27 700 with "al zubayr" if you use google.

However, European books did not pay attention to the this rule. They like to write "Nur al-din" while actually the name is "Nuruddin".

Re: Rm messages

Look Zora, if there is a personal message directed at me, then please ask me on my talk page. I will be happy to solve the issue. In the past I have always addressed your concerns immediately just like I did in this article, where I readded the material you wanted reinserted, despite your lack of providing sources. I don't see how showing me hostility for me reverting my own edits despite your reasons (which at times are lame, sorry to say) will make the issue at hand any better. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Zora, you wrote in Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn: "I wrote it, I put it up, I asked people to look at it, and everyone BUT you preferred the severely edited version better. I don't think that this could have been a surprise to you. Your major points are still there in the new version, and in the new Islam and flat-earth theories article. Zora 08:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)"

Your actions are extremely inappropriate. You started editing Dhul-Qarnayn by poising the well, personally attacking me, and then instead of trying to work contrustively and cooperatively in a civil manner, you decided that you would start your own version of the article in the User Pages - without any discussion, other than general and vauge claims suggesting that you are the paragon of NPOV and cannot be questioned. And then you played a shrewd and dishonest game of politics by waiting until some Muslim editor came around and decided to replace the article with your user pages. Then a bunch of Muslims organize a revert war, and you declare that your actions were completely appropriate, that your edits do not need any explanation from you or anyone else, that my objections to your article do not need to be addressed because I am (supposedly) the "only person" objecting.

How about I organize a group of flat Earthers and start editing flat Earth in order to launch a forked version at my user pages, coupled with a revert war at the article, in order to convince people that the round Earthers are POV pushing bigots who are trying to make it sound as if a round Earth is the only logical possibility? Would you support my pro-flat-Earth efforts? If there were just one or two round-Earthers objecting to the forked version, the revert war, and the flat Earth POV pushing, would that make the opinions of those one or two round-Earthers invalid? Would a big gang of flat Earth POV pushers, supporting me, make my uncivil POV pushing any more legitimate?

I don't have much time, I'm busy with a lot of things. Also, my Internet connection at home has died. However, I will be trying to find a mediator as soon as possible, in order to mediate between you and me. I suggest that you also find a mediator - perhaps we can even agree on one mediator. I am offended by your attitude and comments, I find the quality of your latest work to be sub-standard and little more than POV pushing, revert waring, uncivil, and hypocritical. You are responsable for the revert war at Dhul-Qarnayn, so you are the first user that I am initiating mediation with. If this mediation fails, or if you refuse to enter mediation, then I will have to request arbitration. -- Zeno of Elea 02:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk 2 Arbitration request

Since you were involved / gave evidence in the first arbitration case involving User:Jguk and date notation, I thought you would be interested in a new arbitration request that has been lodged, again regarding User:Jguk and date notation. Please see WP:RFAr#jguk 2 if you would like to comment. Sortan 19:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

help

Hi Zora,

Would you mind taking a look at Hindustani language, and if you agree my version (here, justified on the talk page), keeping an eye on it? I've used up my revert allowance, and JusticeLaw appears to be using sockpuppetry to get around his. (Or maybe I'm being unfair and the last revert was independent.)

Thanks, kwami 02:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Zora,

Judging from the work done, I believe you have more knowledge about the issue than Kwami. If you look at that page from an unbiased view (from what happened on the other page), you will see that those 2 or 3 paragraphs Kwami added a few days ago are contradicting. Hindustani was not the language of the Muslims/Mughals, the Muslim conquerors used that term to define the languages of India (which were there before any invasion). Your proof is some racist in the late 1800's (many years after the Mughals were gone) talking about Muhammadans being Hindustani. They would never label themselves with that either. And for the response, I hadn't asked or invited Harprit to join, he must have followed one of you there. Making accusations is not proper.--JusticeLaw 18:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Can U send a mail at sherfarhan@gmail.com . thanks for your work btw . And yes...your talk page needs some archiving . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sniff..sniff

Wow, Zora. Things have really gone bad between us have they? Anyways thanks for voting :). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No it's not popularity of course and I respect your vote. I was just kidding around with my aabove comment. However, I would have voted for you. ;) Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have voted for her too. Aside from her antagonistic positions, she's a very good editor.

Zora, did you know Nasr has written on Buddha? [4]. Just thought you might be interested.--Zereshk 22:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Semi-automated template substitution

• This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)