User talk:Zora/2005archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Just wanted to let you know that I completely understand your frustration at the self-promotion thing, and will try, if the article is undeleted, to remind Edip that this is really not what WP is about. BrandonYusufToropov 1 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Striver etc.[edit]

If you feel like dropping me a line to let me know where there are egregious bias/composition problems, I'll be happy to try to lend a hand here. BrandonYusufToropov 1 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

Clothing Stuff[edit]

Hi Zora - Oooh, good work on sari. Thanks for pointing those chnages out. (Though I must admit I know very little about Asian dress.)

Today I am doing farthingales and panniers. Just got up the nerve to start uploading pictures - you can't really do historical clothing without pictures. - pk (PKM 2 July 2005 01:45 (UTC))


I had a look at Sahaba to get started, and my jaw dropped. The writing is really quite weak. I'm going to try to scale that mountain first and see what I can accomplish.

Not sure how to access the watchlist Mustafaa is putting together, but if you have a link to it, I'd like to get it. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 2 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)


Urchid is back to his own POV pushing biased edits in the Islam article. Reinserting Islam and Slavery even despite own article. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Oh, dispute solved now I guess; article has been protected. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 21:50 (UTC)

I revised Sahaba[edit]

Hope you can take a quick look at it and perhaps help to defend this (hopefully, closer to NPOV) version against revert efforts that may materialize. BrandonYusufToropov 3 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

Sari new version[edit]

Hi Zora,

I liked the new version on sari that you have made. But I have tried to add those information that were given references. My english might be bad but I dont think that should be the reason to revert an edit. Or may be you reverted it because it was anon when posted. I dont know how I logged off (may be because I was writing for long and it automatically logged off.) anyway I have logged on and posted it again. Besides you have not given references for many of the statements that you have made. which could therefore be interpreted as POV. Vagab 3 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

dear Zora,

I am sad that you have got upset. This is wikipedia and different people are going to contribute and that means several points would be contributed by numerous people. Many a times these ideas might be conflicting with the views that people hold.

You asked me to re-add a picture of Indus valley figurine. Here I give you a link to several pictures from the indus valley including a picture of the figurine that is considered by many Historians as depicting a sari worn by a male Indus valley priest.

(it is the picture of a male with flower patterns)

Zora, please give references for the passages that you have written and please do not get angry or upset. Vagab 3 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

List of Islamic terms in Arabic[edit]

Just to let you know: This isn't my organization; I have no affiliation with them whatsoever. I meant it simply as a reference for the definition I wrote (because that's where I got the info about its meaning in Sufism, and there's no article for the term yet). I have no strong feelings about the link being in the article or not, though, so no edit-war today. --Skoosh 4 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)


Sahaba, no surprise, is still a mess. I know you don't want to get involved there, but I am trying to figure out who else I can recruit to take a look at this. He simply reverts everything. As for the chaos at Islam, I have to state my belief that the disruption there elsewhere is the work of a very familiar hand. Not sure where that should go next, but let me know if you have any ideas. BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up. I will check in there. Zeno is a sockpuppet. What do I do about that? BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

Boy do I like this idea[edit]

Wikipedia should first of all disallow edits from anon IPs. All editors must be registered. Registration under two usernames, blam, that's it, you're out for a year.

Can you suggest a WP link where I can appropriately lobby for this?

In the meantime, a strategy question: does "outing" an obvious sockpuppet on the talk page produce, in your experience, better results than trying to reason with the person, all tactful-like, as though he/she weren't (in all likelihood) avoiding a user ban? BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)

I should note that this (not allowing IPs to edit) has been proposed many times, and each time soundly rejected as being against the philosophy of Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
Good to know. Thank you Jayjg. Can I assume that your strategy in dealing with these folks is not to try to "out" them on talk pages? How do you deal with edits you strongly suspect to originate from someone who has been banned? BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

Proving sockpuppetry[edit]

From what I understand, all the sockpuppets so far have been discovered by analysis of writing style and similarity of edits. Some editors have surprisingly long memories for abuses by certain members. There is, from what I understand, discussion to allow bureaucrats or sysops view the IPs for logged-in users. Developers, on request, will occasionally do a sockpuppet check...comparing the IPs for two users suspected of being the same person. Unfortunately, at the moment I can't find these discussions...I think one of them was something I spotted on Meta a few months ago. --MikeJ9919 6 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)


Zora, there is a dispute as to what you have said or agreed to on the Talk: page. Can you please help clear it up? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit; I'll try to see what it going on at the articles you mention. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Madhuri Dixit[edit]

While I understand that Dixit was a prominent actress, I felt that the article need neutralization. That is, it was too much in favor of Dixit's career. While I am sure that she is a fine actress, the purpose of a biographical article is to present the facts (not opinions) and let the reader come to a positive or negative conclusion. As for clearing out much of the article, I feel that the passages on her roles were a bit redundant, already being covered in the filmography. I am open for further discussion. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

You are suggesting that I revert to the original version and we discuss each part separately. I don't see any problems with that. I will prepare something on Talk:Madhuri Dixit. Also, I was planning on going through the other actress articles. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:42 (UTC)

About the second sentence, it seems that on of Bollywood's leading ladies is a bit too slang-y for an encyclopedia article. I believe the phrase has had a successful film career says the same thing, but in a more formal manner. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 9, 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Muhammad as a warrior[edit]

Much clearer. Many thanks. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

So he's pushed us into Lucy and Charlie Brown territory, eh?[edit]

Clearly, when Striver starts you channelling the Peanuts gang [[1]], things have gone too far...


BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)

It's pretty egregious behavior[edit]

I will back your play on a request for arbitration. Don't think RfC will change very much. BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

And I'll third. This has gone beyond ridiculous. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 16:49 (UTC)

Striver is ridiculous. Something needs to be done. john k 8 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

The thing is, guys ... having observed a few arbitration proceedings, and having been peripherally involved in the one re Jguk, I'm really not sure I want to turn into the kind of person who frequents the arb committee. An atmosphere of mean-spirited attack is not my favorite place. Of course, that's what Striver is doing to the Islam-related articles, but still ... Zora 8 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

I agree that this particular edit is ridiculous and unprofessional, and have just urged him to calm down. However, I can only see 3 reverts by him so far. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

PS: if it becomes necessary, you could also try User:Mark Dingemanse, or dab of course. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)

I don't think the problem with Striver is so much that he violates the 3rv rule as it is that every edit he makes is primarily about inserting extrem Shia POV into articles. This is literally all he does. I suppose that occasionally something useful might make it through, but it would have to be almost entirely coincidental. Unless we want to keep having to be janitors of everything he does, I think arbitration is the only answer. But an RfC would at least be a good place to start. john k 8 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

I agree... and he's one dedicated cookie. If you looke here this is what I think was the worst of his work. Making wikipedia a blatant attack on the personality of various people and sweeping statements. I'm sure that falls under Shia POV but the way it was done was more annoying and less subtle to me than those who add Ali Sina like edits. Each heading title is of the worst kind of POV. Not to mention that we still have dozens of individual Sahaba articles written a lot by him floating around. When I first saw those edits I stopped dealing with the Islamic pages for a while because it just seemed hopeless. He surely has more perseverence than I do. I didn't mind an attempt at expansion for Sahaba so much... but... Oh, and this rambling was just meant to say I might run away and not notice these things... but if there is something so blatant (which much of it is) I'll be sure to help revert or comment on whatever this arbitration stuff is. gren 9 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

So do we want to do an RfC first? As a prelude to arbitration? I can't imagine RfC generating anything constructive, and mediation seems equally futile. You simply cannot reason with the guy. But if they are necessary precursors, and you want someone to get the ball rolling, I'll do it. BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

No problem[edit]

Happy to do this. So do we start with an RfC, then (despite its almost certain uselessness here)? Or do we move straight to arbitration? What's your thinking? BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)

Working on this now[edit]

Hope you can second it before you go offline, I will provide a link in a couple of minutes Godwilling. BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Did I do this right? [[2]] BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)


Hi Zora.

I know that we are on different sides regarding Wikipedia:Request for comments/Striver, however i feel i doesn't need to alienate our selves totally.

So, i have a request for a comment from you:

What do you think about this concept: Events with the Sahaba 1 ?

regards, --Striver 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, whe could include a disclaimer that presents the uncertanity you are refering to, wich is real.

However, its not complitly accurate to say that we have no idea att all of what happend, im sure you know that.

i mean, if you have studied Bukhari, then you know that ha hadith is more or less equal in the big picture and so, and its very much possible make a somewhat accurate reconstruction of event. For example, you remeber the "story of hunny"? Although it was like 10 hadithes from diffent people, it said preaty much the same thing, complmenting eachoter. That can be accuratly descrubed in a warning message in the begging.

The information is there, and it is belived to be somewhat accurat. And it deffinetly needs representation as it forms part of Muslim belif. If nothing else, it should be presented as what Muslim belive happened based on Hadithes. Wich it is.

Apart from the English and the formatting, wich i have no problem in having edited by anybody as long as it conveys the same information, why do you think "the very concept" is bad?

If we assume that it need representation, at least as Muslim belife, then why is the concept bad? I mean, assuming it needs representation, it cant be included in all the biograpies, that im sure you agree on :)

Regards, --Striver 23:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

i added this:

It is also important to note that the following event is neither intended not should it be viewed as a factual statement, rather it is to represent the Muslim reconstruction of the event, based on Hadith.


--Striver 23:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: Whats the diffence between what i present to you and the Battle of Bassorah?

--Striver 00:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hawaiian royalty naming conventions[edit]

Hello, I'd like to solicit your input. I'm trying to initiative a conversation on developing naming conventions for Hawaiian royals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style and would appreciate your views on the subject. Mahalo nui loa, 青い(Aoi) 04:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


Hi, do you know anything about this group? (it's just a hope) I put the article up for deletion because the sources listed by the author don't seem to be related.. I also searched on google and did a google print search and found nothing talking about Jonadabs in any kind of depth, they only seemed to list synonyms. I trust your opinion and don't want to unwarrantedly delete an article but it seems that Jonadabs is either unnotable or not what the author says. If you have time please comment on this for me. gren 05:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure there is enough about that concept to really expound upon it. It just seems like a definition in all of those sources. Do you think there is more information that will make the article less than a stub? If so, I'm not sure where I could find literature about it. My university's library didn't bring anything up under that search. Google prints had very limitted results. Your source doesn't seem to be any place of crediblity or authority about Jehovah's witnesses so I'm confused as what we should use to write it. I can't seem to find anything more than a few lines about it that is credible other than "the saved Jehovah's witnesses". I don't know, if it is kept how do you think the writing should go? gren 08:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I think your rewrite is verifiable from what I can see in the context of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Thanks. I am not sure if I should change my vote to keep or if that should be merged into the Jehovah's Witnesses article. I don't want to lose your work if it gets deleted so I put it here in case you didn't save it. I don't think it's especially notable but I don't usually have too much of a problem with that, so what do you recommend I should vote for? Incorporation into another article or its own article? (We'd have to get it properly linked from other articles as well). gren 23:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Filmfare award[edit]

Hi, you are most welcome, and thanks for the appreciation. I would love to do more edits on topics relating to Indian films. Please continue to give me idea. You may also have a look at the article Bombay Talkies. Thanks again.--Bhadani 08:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

re: Adding Arabic and Devanagari to Bollywood actor articles[edit]

You wrote the following inaccurate message:

I've noticed that you've returned to adding Arabic AND Devanagari versions to the names of Muslim actors, and Devanagari versions to non-Muslims. This seems to me to be coding the articles, so that readers will know who's Muslim and who isn't. I don't think either version of the names is necessary. Can you convince me (and Merovingian, who's gotten involved) that the scripts are necessary? I don't see them in any of the Bollywood sites and news articles I read. I'm thinking right now that the script should be removed. Zora 8 July 2005 10:26 (UTC)

I did not return “to adding Arabic AND Devanagari versions to the names of Muslim actors,” because I never added a Devanāgarī spelling to any article before Friday when I did so only to Aamir, Salman and Shahrukh Khan’s articles, and I did so to test the waters and see how you and only you would react. And I have never added Devanāgarī script to any article (of a Muslim or non-Muslim) without the counterpart Urdu script, so please do not accuse me of having done so.

After you censored the above-mentioned articles saying the mere presence of Urdu was “provocative,” I specifically found the Devanāgarī spellings of their names only to comply with your unilateral rule (as if you were the ruler of the Bollywood articles). Upon complying with Zora’s rule, I see Zora has changed the rule. Now, because you “don't see them in any of the Bollywood sites and news articles I read” (and I should remind you that you cannot read Hindi or Urdu), you have deemed the Urdu and Hindi to be not “necessary” and threaten to censor the articles again.

Of course you don’t see Arabic or Devanāgarī scripts in any of the external articles you read; you are reading articles in English. What is relevent is what takes place within Wikipedia: Most every article with a title that came from a language that uses another script has the appropriate scripts presented as well. Please view the following articles: wonton, karaoke, dim sum, Myanmar, Lata Mangeshkar, David Schwimmer, Karachi, Moshe Katsav, Purim, and hundreds and hundreds of others and you will see this wonderful extension of Wikipedia at work.

However, you see coding of articles where it doesn’t exist and wish to censor only the Bollywood articles. Your point of view is specifically reactionary, trying to anticipate possible offense and then censoring relevent material as a result, doing so in a manner that contradicts the spirit of the majority of articles that wish to preserve the use of scripts other than Latin. Please help to maintain a neutral point of view in Wikipedia, and keep your reactionary point of view from altering the neutrality of articles. You do a great disservice to those of use who wish to (1) present non-Latin scripts for public consumption and (2) maintain neutrality in the articles.

Please direct me to comments by sixteen-year-old Merovingian that supposedly support you. The last time you quoted someone (Ankur) with regard to this issue, he did not so much agree with your premise as with the resulting censorship. (At the time, he did not believe any non-Latin scripts belonged in any Wikipedia article because supposedly “a lot of people in English Wikipedia can not even understand another language.”) Elyaqim 02:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Elyaqim. It is standard Wikipedia practice to give the foreign-language forms of foreign names wherever possible, as illustrated on articles ranging from Jerusalem to Fahd bin Abdul Aziz to David Ben-Gurion to Indira Gandhi; I don't see why actor articles should be an exception. - Mustafaa 13:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a central place to discuss this? Like a Wikipedia:Bollywood Notice Board?iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns, but if ethnic tensions' linguistic manifestations can be dealt with even on Israel-Palestine articles, I'm sure they can be kept minimal for Bollywood actors. Besides, we already do label people by ethnicity all over the place; to extend your "star" analogy, consider such Wikipedia articles as List of Jews. I don't see anything wrong with making people's ethnic background obvious. - Mustafaa 22:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Add both. I concur with Mustafaa. It should be mentioned that leaving out any Urdu script in the articles for Bollywood actors is not going to keep anyone from figuring out who is and is not Muslim. Most of the time, you can tell just from the name (usually derived from Arabic or Farsi; e.g. Aamir, Salman, Shahrukh).
I also wonder if Urdu-language forms of non-Muslim Bollywood actors' names can be inserted into the relevant articles, or if that would spark horrible edit-wars. Where are the lines drawn? Is there a policy on which forms count as "native language"? Are we talking about the same language with different alphabets, or different languages that just happen to pronounce these names exactly the same way? (I vote the former, but maybe that's just me.) Anyway, the issue of dual languages in a potentially politically sensitive environment seems to have been settled in articles about Chinese/Cantonese/Taiwanese/Chinese diaspora people and places - include both forms. If nothing else, it helps people searching for their native-orthography equivalent to find what they're looking for, just like lists of spelling variations. That makes Wikipedia more useful, which can only be a good thing. --Skoosh 03:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I think it would be best to have both, but we don't have to delete contributions of only one version or the other. Personally, I have nothing against Devanagari script, and I think every Bollywood actor should have their name provided in Devanagari. It also seems noncontroversial to add Urdu/Nastaliq script to Muslim actors' articles (since it's perceived more as a matter of ethnic pride than stigmatization, and people from the region are likely to be aware of who's a Muslim anyway, based on names alone). Personally, I think it would be nice to also have Urdu script for non-Muslim actors' names as well, just so I (and millions of other users unfamiliar with Devanagari) could read them and get a more accurate sense of how to pronounce them. (I also wouldn't object to someone adding e.g. Tamil versions of non-Tamil actors' names; it's an official Indian language, no one's eyes will explode if they see it, and it makes Wikipedia more useful for those users). However, none of these versions needs to be deleted, and it's not an explosive enough situation that we need to wait for coordination; if an article has one and not the other, then eventually someone will come along to fill in the gap. --Skoosh 12:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Travel today, very limited time on WP for next 4 days[edit]

... but I did leave Striver a message and suspect I will have to bring arbitration against him when I get back. (Obviously, if you or anyone else decided to move on this in the meantime, I've got no problem with that.) I have abt 4 hours before it's time to leave for airport ... peace, BrandonYusufToropov 13:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Scripts in Bollywood[edit]

I will take a look.

For starters, please don't call it "Arabic script"—quite a few Urdu speakers can--or should :D--be offended by that. Or it might show a cluelessness about South Asian culture that doesn't reflect well on the credibility of the article or the writer. Will not instill confidence in people like me that we are dealing with someone that knows--or, frankly--cares much about the topic

"Urdu script" is fine. The script is actually closest to the Persian/Farsi script.

iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

sari again[edit]

Hi Zora,

If a piece of information is written in clumsy english then it has to be re-written by those who feel they know great english. deleting it is not what wikipedia is about. besides zora you have consistently failed to give references to the large edit that you have made. you are only using the reason of clumsy and bad english as an alibi to delete passages you do not like. If a cultural attire is rooted in its tradition then it has to be accepted not deleted. As long as references is provided for an information it is not Pov and should not be deleted. without references however an edit is Pov even if it is written in great english. Please give references Zora, and please dont show anger by saying shame on you. Vagab 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


Okay, I am now viewing your 07:09, 15 July 2005 revision and Vagab's one right after that (current as of now). The first thing I noticed is agreeing with him indenting the Sari (city) area. Your intro paragraphs say about exactly the same thing, but yours is much clearer. If I didn't know what a Sari was like a "garment worn in special folds" would mean nothing to me. You say the "commonest" which I think, although correct, sounds better as most common, since it's less apt to trip you (or at least me) but rather unimportant. His edit in the Gond section has "worn by Maharashtrian women from Mul)" and in the tribal section "Coorg saris of Madikeri" if there is verifiable fact about those being the birthplaces of two important types of sari then I'd incorporate that into your writing, which was definitely more informative for those sections. For [t]he Nivi drape consists of/starts with section I believe yours is better written (he seems to trip over his prose adding redundancy with first paragraph). I will say that I don't think either are really giving me a picture of what the Nivi style is but that is because for clothing I am lost when reading about it often. I know I've heard kick-pleat, but I'm not sure what it is. I think if etymologically Nivi does refer to the flowering pleat then you should mention that more explicitly. You say the poets say that, but if that word also inherently implies that then it should be mentioned. The paragraphing of your version adds limited benefit for my high resolution, but I think it would be a great advantage in low resolutions. He wrote The sari is modestly sensuous and elegantly conservative. This balanced combination has led to its continuation for a very long time and you wrote Saree draping is an art requiring practice and an eye for style. For directions with pictures, see the external links listed below, your prose is much nicer there -- modestly sensuous is much more subjective than saying it takes skill to do -- but, shouldn't there be consistent spelling? (sari). And I do think mentioning that links have pictures is good... because, that helps me a lot. Origins and history time. Here he seems to become horribly redundant. I was going to critique you for now mentioning the Indus valley civlization (then I noticed you had) and he did twice. I'm not sure I like how you mention sari enthusiast twice. I think I understand the point, which is so that you aren't constantly using passive voice his like section... and I guess there's probably not better phrase. I tend to always like more information so I was trying to make sense out of the end of his origins paragraph but... I'm not sure it's relevant. Sthanapattam could be relevant, since it seems related to the sari? I'm not sure... I think it'd have to be redone... but it might be a relevant topic (I don't know). In the last differences section I was interested in his addition of in the form of a two-piece mundum-neriyathum, with a gold-bordered shawl but, I'm not sure if it's relevant or how to fit it in, or what it is.

I didn't check any references, however, I think that your edits use no more references than his. (One thing about the poets towards the beginning maybe... but that seems to have been explained later). So, I definitely like your style better. I write like Vagab and that's not a good thing, it's almost like stream of concious tripping yourself up. So, if it were between those two versions I'd take yours (especially your intro, which is so much better in every way). I think maybe you could incorporate some of those things he mentioned? But... I really don't know. Also, I hope Vagab is a he, because I've been calling him he, but I call you a he, and striver calls you a she, and well... who knows. Hope this helps some -- sorry about the rambling. Should I post it on Talk:Sari? gren 12:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just looking through the history to see if other versions should be looked at and I compared the current Vagab version to his most recent and they are the same. Then I compared your original (post-rewrite) version to your last revision and you changed a fair amount to try to help. Not budging is horribly annoying and not exactly a good thing for an editor, especially a new one. gren 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)