User talk:Zora

Bold textItalic text* NAL

• 2004 1
• 2005 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• 2006 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

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

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

- Aksi_great (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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. --Srikeit^{(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. [1] 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. —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 Zora –

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. joturner 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  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(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 -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 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)

Personl 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 obviously 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, it's not "original thinking/authorship" etc., either.

Please take a step back, realize the world is a much larger place than your 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 mentions 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 at the term "skirt," which they equate with women's clothing. But they're quite happy with MUG, as it's both an accurate description, as well as one that's not 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)