User talk:Zora/2005archive6

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



I think they are useful in showing off information about Rani's abilities.

Rani's Trivia[edit]

Don't delete the trivia part on Rani's page because it's true what is written there. It contains comments passed by famous people of Bollywood regarding Rani Mukerji. They are genuine. You may want to delete the picture.

Rani's Picture[edit]

I totally disagree with you. I don't see why other Bollywood actors can have more than one picture. If you want to promote Bollywood, then pictures are essential. I don't know if you know the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. Anyway, have it your way, I can't argue with you but please keep Rani's magazine cover picture. I don't like the "Hum Tum" picture that much.


Zora, please don't delete the three photos on Rani's page. They each have a purpose there. You can go to Angelina Jolie's page and see that she has more than three pictures there. Unless you don't keep one photo there. I am going to keep putting Rani's three photos on her page. It's unfair that Angelina can have more than three pictures while Rani is restricted to only one. And I've compromised on the birth name. It's still there. So as I'm keeping the birth name, tell your colleague to keep the three photos.


Zora, I didn't know it was a copyrighted picture. I made a mistake. Sorry!


I finished editing Rani's page and it looks fabulous. Please don't change anything. Every word is true and no plagiarism is done. The sentences are correct according to English literature. I know you will make changes but please don't change any photos or any subjects related. You can correct mistakes but don't create a new context. I've worked very hard today and I'm sure whoever will visit the page will find lots of information on it and appreciate my effort. Thank you, Zora! You've been very helpful though I had to work extra because of your previous edits. Good Luck!


Zora, now you are being lazy. I could've done that too. Rani's page is long and I want 5 photos or 3 at the minimum. The main picture you put is meant to be in the Awards category. Don't try to use your smart card. If you're that active as I think you are then please find some new pictures and put them on her page. I count on you. Don't disappoint me.


Stop editing Rani's photos. If you think they are not copyrighted then could you please add a great picture to the link because I'm tired arguing with you. I don't have the right software to download photos. Please put her Hum Tum picture back or just get a new one.


Aloha, Zora. I'm sorry to bother you with something so trivial, but since I'm an inclusionist, I was hoping you could comment on my deletion of this users edit. If you think there is any truth to this content, I'm wondering if you could help preserve the edit, or make any suggestions. Thanks as always. --Viriditas | Talk 10:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Great. I'll add "find sources" to my task list. I'm sure there's references somewhere. --Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

why thank you[edit]

of course I was peeping in from time to time, but I have in fact managed to not look at my watchlist for more than two months. So, how are things? I'm really into 2005 French urban violence, I think we're doing quite a good job documenting all this, seeing how chaotic the situation still is, and seeing the potential for biases of all sort. regards, dab () 21:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

ah well, just don't let the wikistress get to you. I have lots of uncontroversial little articles I can work on when I don't feel like facing the trolls, and they are actually quite rewarding. I see this as a long-term project, and most trolls lose interest after a while. Sure, there is an endless supply of new trolls, but so what. We shouldn't have the aim of eliminating all npov templates, but to cover as many obscure subjects yet uncovered on the Internet as we can. That said, I think Islam is in an admirable state, all things considered, I would even recommend it as a first overview on the topic. I don't care too much if and where the 'fastest growing' statement appears, and the important things the article gets right, thanks to you and another tireless few. My break was not wikistress related, btw, I had some RL things to address, but I only rarely have my blood pressure raised by WP issues anymore :) dab () 07:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


Zora, You mentioned that my contribution is highly contentious. I first thought that my input was deleted by someone else rather than the editors and that is why I reposted it again. Could you clarify what you found most polemic and I will be more than happy to discuss it.

List of pages needing our editorial teamwork[edit]

Zora thanks so much for the list. I look forward to dropping in on them. And hopefully will suggest some to you too. Autumnleaf 13:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamic conquest of Iran[edit]

No problem. I'm just trying to shape it up without altering the POV in any way. It just needed some good link work. --DanielCD 19:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Deletion Reform[edit]

What do you think? Relevant to Striver. Anyone could mark an article for uncontested deletion, whoever created it (or liked it) would have to defend it by moving it to a formal request for deletion.

People who can't keep track of and defend the hundreds of unencyclopedic, irrelevant articles they create would see them vanish, by default, within (5, 7, 14, number to be determined) days.

Hope to hear from you on this talk page. BrandonYusufToropov 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

About Ibn Baz[edit]


It is not OK to judge me based on my editings, you can only discuss my editings. I am not removing items because they are critical of Ibn Baz (I left critical claims though i beleive it is not true). I was only reading and edited what I beleive is clearly incorrect or not suitable.

- (On Ibn Baz article) I edited the sentence (Born in Riyadh, Najd, he was a Muslim scholar and a staunch opponent of Shias and Mut'ah. He introduced the Misyar marriage.) from the introductry paragragh. I beleive it shoud not be on the introductary paragragh. He was not particually known as "a stunch opponent of shias" (actually sheikh Saffar , the most prominent Shia sheikh in Saudi Arabia visited him two times and described him as moderate [1] ) . And what the hell Mutah has to do with Ibn Baz to be on the introduction, it has never been an issue with Bin Baz. Sunnah scholars differ about Misyar marriage before Bin Baz born, he did not introduce it. He only was asked about it and he gave an answer (fatwa).

- (On Islam and flat-earth theories article) I will write my reason for editing it after I see your response to what i have said above. I am not intending to re-edit , I hope you change your mind. Dy yol 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

please see my discussion page Dy yol 05:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
please see my discussion page Dy yol 05:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you why you're not sympathetic to the Salafi POV, i'm saying that those reasons you mention should not make you bias on other issues and it's good that you recognize that.

- A major accusation against Salafis is that they think that other people than them are misguided which take the form of calling others commiting shirk (this is a form of takfeer).

- There is a major misconception that Salafis believe in Quranic literalism and this one of the reasons I made the editing on (Islam and flat-earth theories). Salafis POV is that the best people who can understand the Quran and Hadith are the people that the Quran was sent to them on there language (and those people are the Salaf). It is not an issue of litralism. When God says "God always with you" on Arabic language, a simple Arabic man doesn't understand it litrally, while some Sufis like Ibn Arabi understands it litrally to use it as a proof for the Unity of Being.

So Salafis say that knowing the language and figures that Arabs at the time of the prophet use is important to understand Quran. And I think you agree when you say "We need more Arabic-speakers on Wikipedia to help with the Islam-related articles".

- And by the way, there is no Quranic ayah that can be interpreted litrally as "the sun revolves around the earth". The ayah that Ibn Baz rely on can be reads as "And the sun runs to a specific destination, such is the design of the Noble, the Knowledgeable " 36:38 . So when people asked Ibn Baz about people who say that the sun is static and the earth is revolves around it, Bin Baz issued a fatwa that any person says that the sun is static is kafir. And we know for sure by science that the sun is not static. Dy yol 05:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Shia Islam[edit]

All I can say is oh my goodness. Thanks for the tip. Babajobu 21:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I addressed those things that jumped out at me. I left a few minor details I noticed as an attempt at you think I missed anything major? Regardless, I'll be keeping my on it. Thanks again, feel free to let me know of any comparable situations now or in the future. Babajobu 21:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I'll look over it a few more times and also keep it on my watchlist. I know the basics of the Shia/Sunni schism, of course, but I don't have a good enough grasp of the nuances of their theological differences to wade confidently into most issues of content. So it's likely that many of the underlying distortions will escape my notice. I'll do what I can, though. Babajobu 22:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Feeling pissed off, arent we? You can go on creating edit wars wherever I go. But my resources are much better than yours. And rest assured I will be there to kick your *** as long as it takes, until you stop this childish crusade of yours against Shi'as, Persians, and all the rest of the people you so vehemently despise. We dealt with black hating racists once in the 50s and 60s. We can deal with them again.

I'll be waiting. :) --Zereshk 00:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have your every edit and everything you did under observance since the days of SEAladdin. Once upon a time, defending the rights of the minoirty was an American virtue. What has happened to this world. (shaking head).--Zereshk 01:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Did I say being a Jew was bad, or are you trying to direct slanderous attention agaisnt me now? (Not cool. and Not buddhist). The reason I said that was because American born Jews (unlike Israeli born jews) are famous for their hatred of Iranians, and you exhibit such hatred quite readily, and you hinted at being a Jew.
Also, your claim to Buddhism does not convince or interest me. None of your antagonistic actions correspond to its peaceful principles. Ive actually lived (not visited) in India.--Zereshk 02:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


My pleasure, cooperation is always rewarding. Dont you think his picture would be nice in the article?

Have a nice day! --Striver 06:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


I know, I read a post on a Gurubrahma's page and thought the barnstar would cheer you up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamic banking[edit]

*sighs* Hi. could you look at my edits here and see what you think. Here is my change and he undid that... it's just bad style and I was accused of trying to hide something. It's really kind of ridiculous. gren グレン 08:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I also created Hisba because I was browsing FR wikipedia and I saw it... it seemed important (and was on Islam template)... I am not good enough to translate more... and I don't know of the concept really... unless it's something different in English. If you knoe anything about could you tell me? gren グレン 10:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sassanid edits[edit]

About my Sassanid edits and all the other edits if you see any problem of any kind just leave me a message about it. I dont want to "make extra work for everybody" as you claim. Amir85 12:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"since you have a long history of copvio, and since people who WROTE articles you copied have complained, loudly," Could you send me some of the complaints ?Amir85 4:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In Sponsianus case we did agree where the problem was. He also promised to change the Selecuid article which obviously he forgot or just didnt do it but I did changed the his requested article. Now lets stick with your "people who WROTE articles you copied have complained"I didnt copy anything from his article, and Sponsianus is a person, where are the other complaints ? 5:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


"that "footer" gives undue prominence to an extreme political view" (re your revert of my edit to Hawaii)

Hello! Regarding the Legal status of Hawaii footer, I think it would be fairer to say that Hawaiian nationalism is a minority point of view that nevertheless is of considerable significance in day-to-day political discussions in Hawai‘i. Unavoidably, what is "extreme" and what is "undue prominence" here are subjective judgment calls about which editors can certainly honestly disagree. The point is not to let our own U.S.-shaped mindframe bias our judgment, just as we would hope mainland Chinese editors don't just automatically bar Tibet/Taiwan independence views from being noticeably displayed in Chinese Wikipedia.

The template was displayed for comment for over three weeks on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii page. Only two editors (one not even a member of the project) reacted. One engaged in spirited editing and discussion of the more extensive sidebar version of the template. The other left a note on my talk page saying "nice job". At no time did anyone say they would object to either template being deployed, so I am a little perplexed.

Help! What's your suggestion? I'm open to discussion. -- IslandGyrl 20:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I need to pay closer attention to the "Project Hawaii" page. Obviously, the template has no use, as the information it contains should be in one or more articles, not in a footer. What was the point of creating a template, the only use of which is to allow display on multiple pages? I'm baffled. I should post this on the project page ! Sorry - Marshman 18:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! You wrote on my talk page: "IslandGyrl, the 'takeover was illegal and therefore should be reversed' school of thought is a minority position that has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being enacted."

Although Hawaiian nationalist sentiment has a long continuous history, describing it in a template makes no claim about its chances of success. By way of comparison, the Government of Tibet in Exile probably also has little chance of ever ruling Tibet again, let alone all the additional territory it claims; yet the main text of the Tibet article, and especially the map, gives "equal time" to all those claims. Here I'm not even suggesting that the nationalist view be given "equal time" in the article; I'm just arguing for including a template.

You wrote: "Many people will agree that the overthrow and the annexation were wrong -- however, a hundred years later, I don't think that there are even many Native Hawaiians who would give up their social security benefits in order to belong to a small island nation where they would STILL be a powerless minority."

But this is just our particular POV. I think no one knows to what degree Hawaiians would favour independence, were they free of the fear of being punished for it (e.g. through loss of benefits). Whereby as far as I know, U.S. citizenship has never been a requirement for collecting already-accrued Social Security; and pragmatic transitional arrangements, bilateral treaties, etc. can and do resolve such problems on an international level all the time. No argument there for removing the template.

You wrote: "The concept of 'illegality' in international law has very little force as yet, and relying on it to convince people of the wrongness of the takeover is a back-assward position. Most people can easily be convinced that the annexation was unfair, if they learn more about the history, but they're not going to be convinced that it was 'illegal'."

Again, we may think the nationalists are barking up the wrong tree, but that's just our POV. As an entry in an encyclopedia, the template should not be trying to convince anyone of anything but rather try to educate by characterising an existing dispute. The nationalist side is a set of beliefs that is not all that uncommon in Hawai‘i. By describing the beliefs we're not saying they represent a strategy that will actually "pan out".

You wrote: "The 'illegality' position exists and should be described on Wikipedia, but it doesn't merit having an official-looking template on the main Hawaii page."

I think it does merit it. The political landscape in Hawai‘i has many unique features that cannot be understood without understanding the conflicting views of annexation and all that ensued. The legalistic approach provides a good introductory "road map" or overview of the conflict, as the sides and their respective arguments are relatively easy to pin down. The more general moral or historical debates, on the other hand, would probably be impossible to condense into a compact overview in this way.

-- IslandGyrl 05:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Khanwa[edit]

Hi Zora, I write to you as I find only your message on the talk-page of Battle of Khanwa. I have basically re-written the page and made it coherent, but it would be nice if we could have some reliable references that cover the profusion of information available on the page. Could you help? - ImpuMozhi

  • Hi, thanx for the quick reply -- I am a competent copy-editor myself, what I have done to the article is mainly that work, what I need is confirmation of information (references). I contacted you as you are one of the two earliest people listed on the history page of that article. As a copy-editor, I am sorry that you find the article still very dense! - - Thank you very much anyway for the helpful reply. - ImpuMozhi
    • Hi Zora, sorry to take up more time, but only a minute - - the first sentence is "The Battle of Khanua (1527) was the second of the series of three major battles, victories in which gave Babur. . .". This is admittedly too complex a sentence to be easily defended, and I will now break it into simpler sentences, but in the sentence as it stands, the word "in" is correctly used and necessary. It implies the presence of the implicit word "battles", so the sentence is understood to mean ". . .victories in which battles gave Babur. . .". The "in" refers to battles, not victories, if you see what I mean. I don't know if this message is clear, but I am certain that you will make out what I mean. It is evident that you are a very good copy-editor, hats off to you. - ImpuMozhi

Could, you, do you think ...[edit]

... identify the top five high-visibility Islam-related articles you consider to be under threat of continual assault from less-than-objective editors? I'm thinking in particular about the kinds of partisan challenges we've been facing at Ali. I have over 280 articles marked for watching, but I want to be sure I understand what your top five are so we can look at them together if necessary. Many thanks BrandonYusufToropov 13:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hawaii recent changes[edit]

FYI...the simplest way to keep up with new articles and changes to Hawai‘i-related articles is to bookmark Recent changes. This link is also listed on the "Open tasks for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawai‘i". --Viriditas | Talk 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Do as you wish sister, if you revert it, you will see it in the RCF that is comming. Yes, it is due to the RFC i posted it, i wanted to see if you still have the same stuborn belief, ie, that sourced statements have less weight than your personal opinion. --Striver 00:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The {{Islam}} template is broken - developers should be informed[edit]

The {{Islam}} template is broken (as of 00:17, 15 November 2005). It shows a "</span>" on the page it is inserted. Developers should be informed - Example, screenshot Cheers --tickle me 00:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

They fixed it. --tickle me 03:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


I'm an iconoclast and a zealot [2]. Must have done something good. :) Dmcdevit·t 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh my god, I don't know what to say. Oh wait, I probably shouldn't have said "oh my god"... I have to work more on this zealotry thing. :) Thanks for the barnstar, I shall treasure it forever. You keep it up too. In other news, I just protected rajput again today. Sorry I ever even told you about it! Looks like something's going to have to be done about Shivraj sooner or later, but I guess we'll see if the latest protection results in anything. Hope you are well. Dmcdevit·t 03:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
PS, Shivraj and I are exchanging emails. I just sent him a rather long email explaining NPOV and encouraging more civility. Now that the page is protected, let's give him a blank slate, and see if he'll work better with others. Dmcdevit·t 03:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey there[edit]

Sent you an e-mail. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 20:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


And please do return the favor. BrandonYusufToropov 17:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


They are trying to reinstate this really offensive article. Can you please take a look? Yuber(talk) 16:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon User IP : responding[edit]

Hi Zora

You keep on reverting to your ori articles everytime I add my edits (pls see my revision 18 Nov) reversing what I write everytime. Kindly note that I am not doing da'wah (as stated in yr comments) and my additions are factual and additions to already written paragraphs. I have studied your profile and I note that you have been been a long established contributor to the article on Islam but if you are not a practising Muslim with indepth knowledge on Islam (as an Islamic ulama' should be), I would suggest you stop writing about an encyclopaedic entry about Islam but instead write on your actual beliefs. If you're a practising Muslim, pls ignore my paragraphs. I would gather from your profile you're an American with some good degrees in good American universities. I am a praticising Muslim attending regular Islamic classes and I believe I am confident enough to write about the true facts on Islam. Your articles on Islam, although well-balanced, seem to give equal weight to those who practise wrongly and those who practise it correctly. Thus your articles appear to be more focus on all round balance of the Islamic article and coverage of the various sects instead of telling the users what the right Islamic path is. Anyone who read your articles could easily go into "the wrong group" because you do not discern between the sects which are accepted by Allah and His Prophet and those which are deviationist sects. I believe only a practising, knowledgeable Muslim would be able to put the right emphasis on the proper Islamic practises. Pls note I am only commenting on my changes. The ones I have left untouched are okay and I don't have any conflicts with those and I will say they are well-written.

Crazy week ...[edit]

So I just dropped you a note here to let you know that I would be happy to oblige with your request. Hope all is well with you and yours. BrandonYusufToropov 11:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Kasidiya[edit]

There seems to be no history for the article? which means, it was never created? I'm not exactly sure what you're saying (or if that's just a typo) but if you have a legitimately good version without any copyright violations you want to put up then I am not sure why you would have to wait. As long as there is no copyright violation text you can remove the template... that's what I think. No reason to keep it tied up for a week because of another's failings. gren グレン 06:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A note on justice[edit]

Hello , the link to justice isnt needed , I thought the article justice deals with ethical conceptions of justice , but it doesnt actually.I think a huge error of Islamic fundamentalists , and to some extent all Islamic clerics is confusing Islamic ethics with Islamic law , they believe that when there is an explicit command , ethical arguments are invalid because in their view ethics (as a branch of philosophy or nearly so) is human while laws are divine.Its a good idea to mention this tendency in the article.Pasha 14:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi, this is a general invite, asking whether anyone might be interested in joining a long term Wikiproject

(As in Biblical Criticism, rather than about criticising the bible)

Its goal is to increase the amount of information originating from academia in biblical articles, as it is noticably lacking at the moment, this includes

  • Textual criticism
  • Critical theories
  • Mention, and summary, of historical commentaries (i.e. commentaries interpreting the subject from people thousands of years ago)
  • Information concerning change in interpretation, over tim
  • Interpretations from historic groups cast as heretics by the mainstream, including esoteric traditions (such as from groups like those responsible for the Book of Enoch)
  • Interpretations from historic groups who were once the mainstream, but where the interpretation is no longer supported by the mainstream.
  • Apologetics (from academic sources, rather than local religious people)

This also includes transferring the information present in the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia, which is not present in Wikipedia. This work is over 100 years old, and so the information needs updating once copied over, e.g. by taking account of subsequent scholarship (e.g. Martin Noth, Richard Friedman, Israel Finkelstein).

--francis 00:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a look[edit]

Zora, can you please take a look at the Jihad article? It is being attacked once again. Completely undiscussed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

re:The vandalism templates[edit]

I replaced that with an NPOV tag just because the {lotvandal} tag said something about NPOV. I misread it rather, and am quite happy for the tag to be removed. The {lotvandal} tag is a bad idea for several reasons: it's phrasing bites newbies (or at least makes them concerned for their reputation before they even have one), shouts the fact that the article isn't worth reading and won't deter vandals so much as give them a head on a stake to admire. Moreover, vandalism isn't much of a problem, — really. It is washed away with lightning speed on most articles. It isn't the vandalism that makes Wikipedia basically unciteable: it is the lack of any means to check credentials of authors coupled with the fact that very very many articles do not cite reliable sources. Compared to those 3 deficiencies, the vandalism is just an itch we scratch. -Splashtalk 04:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

{(PS. I think you mean Muhammad, rather than Islam, right?)
I certainly agree that vandalism is not not a problem. I don't really edit articles that suffer from POV crusades, although I know they are a massive energy sink. POV crusades should have been on my list of things that make Wikipedia unciteable, but they are probably included in the citation of reliable sources: particularly the word "reliable". I wasn't advocating credentialled editors, Nupedia failed after all, but it the lack of them is something that makes it hard to cite Wiki as a source. We can live without them though, so long as articles are carefully sourced and neutrally written. We don't have Thanksgiving over here; it's all a bit of a mystery to me. -Splashtalk 14:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Hey, I was looking through to Gutenberg texts and the ones from 2003 have only text... no html, etc. Is there a plan anywhere to make better quality ones to add to Gutenberg with chapter headers and all? Just curious. gren グレン 03:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

No, thank you very much for all of the information. It just seemed odd that rather obscure books would have nicely formatted pages but some of the most prominent old books would be ascii text. Hopefully they will do some re-releasing soon. Thanks.


Nice re-statement, Zora. You never cease to amaze me. btw, I had tried a very minor re-organization of film families section with the relations mentioned. I'm waiting for feedback so that I can do it for other families as well. --Gurubrahma 05:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zora - but I think I am straying![edit]

Oops - I am not sure I am back as I intended and am getting distracted. Thanks for the support though. In the longer term I will return to the fold! Autumnleaf 21:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It also seems my dear that we have company who are quite zealous! Let's enlist them in the most diplomatic way possible! Autumnleaf 22:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Relax honey; I meant that some mad keen novice contributors are beginning to crop up on our edits - like new brooms teaching us to suck eggs! Hee Hee!  ;o) Autumnleaf 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edits on Aishwarya Rai[edit]

Hi Zora, I've noticed that you've been reverting linkspam on the above where the ebert link was being replaced. I support your actions, in fact I was the one to insert the ebert link as there was no source prior to that; however, also consider that this linkspam is being done by a newbie and your edit summaries in reverting seem gruff/blunt. I think WP:bite may apply here as the user is relatively new with less than 50 edits. I can understand reverting linkspam done by anon IPs but I think we need to leave a message on the talkpage of new users engaging in linkspam. I've placed a message on that user's talkpage and I hope he will see reason. Please view this message as a friendly note from me. --Gurubrahma 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I did not know abt the other article. We should put it up for afd as he is saying that it is his own article and hence there are no copyright issues. If you are agreeable, do let me know, I'll do the full formalities. btw, I am happy that our joint efforts have helped in reducing churn at Bollywood. btw, if you are hard pressed for time, you may want to list such problems at WP:INWNB - I guess more people will be available to help out there; however, no one may take ownership of all the problems - so that may be the flip side. Do let me know if I can be of any help. --Gurubrahma 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, the other article (most beautiful one) wd be deleted under wp:cv itself as Deepujoseph (now thunderboltz is his nickname) has blanked the talk page, indicating that he is not opposing copyvio and hence deletion. btw, I noticed that an anon IP has started the article - it cd be him but it cd be someone else also. Anyways, lets consider the issue closed. Do not hesitate to inform me if you need my assistance - put it on my talk as a separate thread and I'll attend to it on a priority basis. --Gurubrahma 17:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Please delete the page for me. I am sorry for the trouble caused. I did make a lot of stupud mistakes. :P

I am immensely impressed by the effort you people put into wikipedia. It is very heartening to note this. Keep up the good work. And thanks again! thunderboltz 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Zora. I received your message on my user talk page, and I responded by addressing your comments on Shivraj Singh's conduct to the man himself, as follows:

Hi, I've received a message on my talk page suggesting that you use "socks and anonIPs to give" yourself "unlimited reverts and veto power over the article", and that your "unilateral, unwavering refusal to allow any view but" yours "is what's blocking any progress" on the article (comment by Zora (talk · contribs)). I don't take a point of view on this, but could you give me your own view on what is happening, so I can understand, and perhaps facilitate a solution to, the ongoing problem? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations are serious ones and of course I take them seriously, but more important than that is the fact that we're all engage in creating an encyclopedia. I'm assuming that you're both trying to do that--which means that all significant points of view must be represented in the article. Let's try to work together to ensure that the article does that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No one is puffing Edip Yuksel[edit]

The liness which i added on 30th november were FACTUAL QUOTES MADE BY EDIP HIMSELF and i can well quote those. Ali Sina has also been allowed to quote bad and nasty things against "islam".


Obviously you're not a Submitter, but you cannot stop people with knowledge of Submission from editing the BELIEFS sections of the United Submitters International article. I am about to edit the BELIEFS section in a moment, GOD-willing, because I have a great knowledge of what Submitters believe. It is not your place to delete my additions because they fall under the category of BELIEF.

I won't touch anything else, because I truly believe it should remain authoritative, but the section of BELIEFS is going to be changed because it is vague and Submitters have the right to outline their faith on this Free Encyclopedia. Who would understand the BELIEFS of Submission other than a Submitter?

GOD be with you, GOD guide you.


See this: [3]

Personal Question[edit]

are you Islamic? if yes, how do you practise?

if no... what is your fixation/obsession? pardon my blunt questioning, but... what concern is it of yours? are you so arrogant as to edit the BELIEFS section of the Submission article when you are noy a Submitter? how can you possibly know what Submitters believe if you're not one?

despite the rubbish you'll read online (which i'm trying to clarify!), the Submitters aren't occult in any way. you want to hear a little story, missy?

Edip got into a fight with Rashad close to his death. it has been 15 years since he's been crying wolf (or Shirk/Idolatry) and yet no one cares. he rambles on & on via his website and you assume it is fact. that is because Submitters don't descend to his level of name-calling; we don't even bother to refute his claims because everyone realizes his arguments don't fly.

but, i will say this: his english is bad, but his Arabic is far worse.

[Qur'an 2:30] Recall that your Lord said to the angels, "I am placing a representative on Earth."

"a representative"


as in... "one"... as in... singular!

Edip claims that this is humankind/humanity/human beings. how exactly can 1 = 6 billion? Edip doesn't understand these basic language structures and rules.

you really should know that while i AM admittedly bias towards Submission... but Edip has a grudge against Masjid Tucson, Rashad Khalifa, and everyone who won't listen to him. he'll be VERY nice to you if you exalt his intelligence and place him up on a high pedestal, but the second you disagree you see his true colours.

anyways... point being: Edip is full of bologna. his "20 books" and "best sellers" are illegit, and his claims cannot be held as fact. Wiki should remain objective and authoritative... we can't let Edip (or me!) poison it with bias.

i'm going to keep this fair, make it a clean fight above the belt... but we simply cannot take anything Edip says as fact.

at Rashad's funeral he said "i prayed for GOD to take him away!" and then denied it... he's a stone-cold liar, and he's VERY good at it. he keeps a straight face and he speaks falsehood with great conviction. GOD has indeed willed for Edip to be a first-class dajjal (liar).

Good, then.[edit]

excellent. please keep an eye on what i write because i don't want to preach and i don't want to be too pro-Khalifa. but i must stress: i don't care about Khalifa. ppl think he was a...

-rapist -apostate -heretic -"Jewish Agent" -"Zionist Agent" etc. etc.

nothing i say (especially as a Submitter) will shed anyone's inherent prejudice. but seriously i'm going to find his PhD, because i actually have a photocopy of it somewhere. i know some people who knew him (i never even met the guy) and helped him with his mathematical findings.

hmm... Buddhism eh... that's interesting. one of my BEST friends is a Buddhist, but he claims to be a monotheist. are you in it for the "spiritualism" or philosophy, or are you in it for the more-than-one-god stuff?


lol. if i lived in HAWAII i'd probably be a "free spirit" too :P

One more tidbit[edit]

of Edip info: he has about 4 followers, and i'm almost certain he's biologically related to 2 of them. he's desperate for attention, and the internet is the only place for him.

just look at YUKSEL.ORG... a big picture of him right there, as if to say: WORSHIP ME.

also: if he thinks Submitters worship Rashad Khalifa, then why did he (or one of his "followers") permit Rashad's photo for usage on Wiki? these are clearly the tactics of twisted men seeking fame and glory.

can i remove the Khalifa picture from the article because it says in the corner of it and that's just propaganda for their website? is in OPPOSITION to Rashad and yet Wiki allows for to sit pretty in the corner of his picture? that's unfair, but i don't know all the rules. can i delete or crop the image based on this criteria?

well, i'm glad[edit]

to have a non-Muslim involved. as far as Buddhism goes though, personally i think there is only one purpose for out existence... choice.

Choose GOD alone or choose other-than-GOD alone.

if you can choose GOD without assigning power to anything in the universe except Him as a Buddhist, then it's awesome. if not, you might want to consider something:

1) does the universe have an Initiator? 2) is the Creator ONE? 3) is the He the ONLY source of power in all of existence?

if Zen and Buddhism get you in touch with your being, with your existence, then i think it's really great. but maybe next time you meditate you should meditate on the Greatness of your Beginning; on the Glory of He who gave you life and the power to seek refuge in him.

many Buddhist reach Zen-like states of clarity in which they are Submitting to GOD's will, perhaps unknowingly...

right now your lungs filling with air, your heart beating inside your chest, the blood flowing through your circulatory system, your nerves and senses... they are ALL submitting to the will of GOD. the only element of the human being that does not submit to GOD is the mind. when you meditate, and your mind is clear, fill it with thoughts of your Origin, of your Source.

it might be fun. i dunno, it couldn't hurt to try, right?

Category:Islam related literature[edit]

Hey, I created this... because, well, I'm just trying to bring organization to Islam-related books... feel free to advise, etc. I have my proposed directory structure in the category there, so... yah. Thought I'd show you. Too much going on to want to do something more controversial than this. I also moved things like Category:Arabic literature out of Islamic texts and into Category:Quran since I'm not sure if all of the 12 Imams wrote Arabic, and people like the Ahmadis and NOI have non-Arabic Islamic texts... so, they'll get subcategories... trying to purify overgeneralizations sometimes meets resistance. gren グレン 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Qur'anic Meditation[edit]

first... (via

The commandment to worship God alone is also found in the Hindu scriptures:

Let us meditate on God, His glorious attributes, who is the basis of everything in this universe as its Creator, who is fit to be worshiped as Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and self existent conscious being, who removes all ignorance and impurities from the mind and purifies and sharpens the intellect. [Gayatri Mantra, Yajur Veda]

second... (here are some Qur'anic passages on meditation!)

During the night, you shall meditate for extra credit, that your Lord may raise you to an honorable rank.

He came out to his family, from the sanctuary, and signaled to them: "Meditate (on God) day and night."

In the privacy of the night, they meditate on their Lord, and fall prostrate.

{He) Who sees you when you meditate during the night.

Is it not better to be one of those who meditate in the night, prostrating and staying up, being aware of the Hereafter, and seeking the mercy of their Lord? Say, "Are those who know equal to those who do not know?" Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

During the night you shall meditate on His name, and after prostrating. maybe, just maybe... you're already a Submitter.

i wasn't always a Muslim Submitter, i used to be something else before it witnessed the Mathematical Miracle of the Qur'an. anyways, peace.

Aishwarya Rai[edit]

WikiThanks.png Just wanted to send a little appreciation for your constant maintenance of the Aishwarya Rai page, it gets so much attention. - AKeen 05:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Zora, I think I owe you an apology -- I definately did not intend to indict you specifically a bigot, but I can see how my sentence could be thus construed. What I wanted to say was that most people in the "Rajput" debate seem to be involved in other POV battles, mostly about religion/identity/culture. You will allow that you have had your fair share of such disputes, almost without exception related to islamic topics; indeed, the "Rajput" dispute also involves islam. I do also realize that issues may not become controversial unless some r/i/c matter is needled, which perhaps explains the fact that your other battles have been of such nature. I am leaving a comment on the talkpage of your proposed version of the "Rajput" page. Once again, my apologies for an inadvertent discourtesy. ImpuMozhi 07:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Zora, I have a 10 page paper due in 5 hours so I can't do this.. but in regards to the Ulema move and the sub article stuff... whatever it is... leave a message Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard... I am sure the admins will have something to say. I'm too involved to really want to make any bold moves on these issues but I'm sure some other admins will have some idea of what to do. I know that on Template:WivesMuhammad some neutral admins have stepped in strongly. Thanks. gren グレン 10:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Look at this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Catalog_of_defamation_incidents--Striver 14:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you accusing ME of vandalism?[edit]

Striver took my comments out of context and reorganized them. I tried to revert to a version before he started editing me. If I omitted any of his comments, it was inadvertent. Please ask HIM not to unilaterally reorganize other people's comments (as he has done previously), don't call me a vandal. Zora 01:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You removed over 2000 bytes, I do not care about the details. You are being no better than an average vandal with your careless editing. Also two wrongs dont make a right. Please try not to make large removals. Thanks. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you remind me the dispute? I have perhaps reverted over a hundered pages and cant recall all of them. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
As an apology for the earlier incidet I have taken the liberty to assist you with the disambiguation page Aisha (disambiguation), however I do not know what these items are supposed to be. can you explain each item with a sentence/phrase. I can properly format them if necesary. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm an admin now!![edit]

Crystal ksmiletris.png

Hi Zora, it is totally unacceptable that you were so late in voicing your support on my RfA (Your vote was #40). But guess what, thanks to your hagiographic portrayal, I had 10 more votes and reached 50!! Had your vote been an edit in the main namespace it wd have been deleted for being an extreme POV *lol* Now I feel more comfortable in extending offers of assistance as I've both the mop and the bucket. Just noticed Deepujoseph's edit below mine, guess he'll become a good egg. As a tribute to your efforts on Bollywood, I plan to work on the movie Qurbani sometime. btw, you may want to hv a look at Bobby (film). If you are a fan of that movie, i'm definite that you'll not let the article rest as a stub. Thanks a ton, --Gurubrahma 07:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

From Sonustar

Zora, if you are going to edit Wikipedia pages, you need to put aside your blatantly clear dislike for Christians and Jews in daily defacing, deleting and destroying Christian and Jewish articles on Wikipedia (Aisha (Singer) and Jewish Jewels) that you do not like for whatever reason.

Christians and Jews have the right to exist in this world and their contributions acknowledged here, not deleted by an unbalanced zealot.

Deleting and maliciously belittling Christian and Jewish articles in Wikipedia and removing references to them, their works and accomplishments, will not negate their accomplishments in life, only show your great religious intolerance for others and their beliefs, that brings shame on your religion, unfairly causing people to think the worst of Islam.

No one is using Wikipedia for publicity as you labelled it. The page you keep defacing is connected to a site that has over 6,500,000 million hits on its own, before ever being listed on this site.


Dispute resolution calls for an RfC first. That means finding all of the evidence and then having people tell us things about the situation. I suppose I probably never should have been made admin. I'm not apt to abuse it but I surely find this system somewhat stupid. I really don't want to take the effort to make an RfC and there's a good chance that I won't. I am busy because of school but I still have plenty of time if I want. The issue is I don't really want to. If you looked at a curve related to the amount I learn from wikipedia you'd seem it slowly approaching an asymptote at zero. I guess we shall see what happens. gren グレン 05:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I even signed it. Then replace everything I said about RFC and make it RFAr. Same sentiments... although, this is even more advanced and nothing has been done about it. gren グレン 06:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Clothing, Without[edit]

Ok I agree my spelling sucks and I should have checked it. However I have never seen 'without' used as the opposite of within, and it confused me the first time I read it. (Yes I looked it up and it appears to be a valid if underused use)


Ralph Sleigh 19:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mera number aayegaa![edit]

I will also grin and laugh when you become an admin and get into unrelated activities like me <g> FWIW, my response to him is [4]. Do you feel WP:DFTT would apply here? --Gurubrahma 15:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tongan Babel templates[edit]

Hi Zora. I have created all the categories : Category:User to ("mother category") and the 5 sub-categories: Category:User to-N (native speakers), Category:User to-4, Category:User to-3, Category:User to-2, Category:User to-1. Then you only have to fill the templates

If you have problems, you can replace, in the following boxes, the English text by Tongan text:

<!-- beginning of the five templates to copy-paste after replacing English text -->

<div style="float:left;border:solid #6ef7a7 1px;margin:1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#c5fcdc;"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#6ef7a7;text-align:center;font-size:14pt;" | '''[[Tongan language|to]]'''
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em;" | This user is a '''[[:Category:User to-N|native]]''' speaker of '''[[:Category:User to|Tongan]]'''.[[Category:User to|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:User to-N|{{PAGENAME}}]]

<div style="float:left;border:solid #CCCC00 1px;margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#FFFF99"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#FFFF00;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | '''[[Tongan language|to]]-4'''
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This user speaks '''[[:Category:User to|Tongan]]''' at a '''[[:Category:User to-4|near-native]]''' level. [[Category:User to|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:User to-4|{{PAGENAME}}]]

<div style="float:left;border:solid #99B3FF 1px;margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#E0E8FF"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#99B3FF;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | '''[[Tongan language|to]]-3'''
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This user is able to contribute with an '''[[:Category:User to-3|advanced]]''' level of '''[[:Category:User to|Tongan]]'''.[[Category:User to|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:User to-3|{{PAGENAME}}]]

<div style="float:left;border:solid #77E0E8 1px;margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#D0F8FF"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#77E0E8;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | '''[[Tongan language|to]]-2'''
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This user is able to contribute with an '''[[:Category:User to-2|intermediate]]''' level of '''[[:Category:User to|Tongan]]'''.[[Category:User to|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:User to-2|{{PAGENAME}}]]

<div style="float:left;border:solid #C0C8FF 1px;margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#F0F8FF"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#C0C8FF;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | '''[[Tongan language|to]]-1'''
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This user is able to contribute with a '''[[:Category:User to-1|basic]]''' level of '''[[:Category:User to|Tongan]]'''.[[Category:User to|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:User to-1|{{PAGENAME}}]]

<!-- end of the five templates to copy-paste after replacing English text -->

And then, copy each content in the right template Template:User to (native), Template:User to-4, Template:User to-3, Template:User to-2 and Template:User to-1.

One thing is that Babel templates usually use only language text in the boxes, without English translation, linking each time to the category of the level and to the "mother category", and also show, inside the templates, the two categories.

If you have any problems, you can reach me in my English user talk page, in my French talk page or through Special:Emailuser/Hégésippe Cormier. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 01:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Urdu & Religious Literature[edit]

Mr/Ms? Zora! I am astonished that you under rated (and deleted these) renowed scholars of sub-continent, viz,;

Allama Shibli Nomani, Syeed Suleman Nadvi, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakim, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi etc.

Did you not know, first Urdu work on Life of Muhammad, Gita, Rumi, Philosophy of Religion, Islamic Economics was done by mentioned above savants whom entire world endorse.

If you still think that these are my favourite "clerics" rather real contibutors then OK!

By the way, there are still biased facts and stuff in the Urdu page, portraying personal favourites, school of faith etc.

M.Imran (Karachi) December 12, 2005

Ramadan article[edit]

Your help with the Ramadan article is appreciated. joturner 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


He doesn't seem to follow any really concept of consensus. You probably shouldn't "leave". It's too final and there are still good things about wikipedia of course. I do understand your sentiments though. I edit less here than I used to and a lot less on Islam related articles. Partly because I'm busier. Partly because my friends have been playing more games. But... mostly because a lot of things that were less fun and interesting than wikipedia have become better than editing here. So, please don't "leave" even if we fail to solve a lot of the problems. Just, edit less... because that makes perfect sense. When all of what you do seems to be fixing others mistakes it makes sense to not edit and maybe your less than one hour a day policy is worthwhile.

As for the Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib I don't know what to say. I reverted it to your version and moved it back to the page. I told him he can do what he wants with People reported to be born in the Kaaba for the time being. If he moves someone else's work arbitrarily without discussion again I will block him for 24 hours. You are right that it has gotten out of hand and he left a mess doing it. I do recommend that you add some citations to the page because when discussions do take place you will have to defend your version. I am not sure where all of the information you got is from (I am not very well versed on this) but I do know that Striver shouldn't just be doing what he does. So, my moves were made regardless of content. Thanks for informing me. gren グレン 01:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that u dont have the curtsy to warn me when you VFD my articles, but i dont have the same standard. FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib.--Striver 03:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Zora, I thought it was best to only have one transliteration so I chose the most common spellings for each name. I didn't discriminate between Persian/Arabic. If you feel that's wrong, please let me know.


Aw, you're so sweet. I think it went fine. Just had to say bye to everyone at school for a month :( but I'm home now. Tell me if you need anything! By the way, what is a "<g>"? I keep turning my head sideways but all I see is a conehead with a goatee. Dmcdevit·t 09:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What happened there^ ? I know how to spell goatee! What a think-o. Hm, well, you hip little computer geek. Learned something new. <:œ<<= hah, squid, beat that! Dmcdevit·t 09:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Closest I could get to a singing, dancing squid: <:œ<<= Mwahaha. Dmcdevit·t 09:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


dear Zora -- I'm already playing Wikisaint on Talk:Rajput, and the Hindu brand of jingoism is almost more than any sane person can take. If I can get Rajput back on track, I'll be sure to drop by in Iran. In the meantime, have this barnstar as a long overdue sign of recognition for your tirelessenss in keeping jingoist and religious nutters at bay. (signed for dbachmann by Zora, barnstar moved for prominent display)

Let's see if I can lend you a hand in there Zora.
خرم Khurram 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Because you deserve it[edit]

Looks like someone just beat me to giving you a barnstar, but you still deserve another. I hereby award Zora this defender of the wiki barnstar for her, tireless, thankless struggle to keep articles relating to Shia Islam of encyclopedic quality. Thanks! (signed for Babajobu by Zora, barnstar moved for prominent display)

It's my pleasure. I wish I could have been of more help. Not enough time, not enough knowledge to slog through the debates about Islamic history as you so gamely do. Wikipedia's so much better off for your involvement. I hope you get some support soon, you deserve it and need it. Babajobu 04:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Medes and Iranian[edit]

Hey Zora,

You reverted my revert from an anonymous user here, with a reason I dont quite understand. Of course the name "Iran" evolved later, but that doesnt mean Iranian Peoples or Indo-Iranians didnt exist! The definitions are in both cases linked to the Iranian language, both modern as well as ancient precursors of it. The Medes fit the bill.

Dont get me wrong, I understand your argument. But just because the name doesnt exist doenst mean they didnt either. I'm sure the name "Neanderthal" didnt exist either, but they were around nonetheless.

Greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 13:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Aloha, Zora. Could you take a look at an anon's changes to Hula? Thanks. --Viriditas 05:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I just made a copyedit. --Viriditas 05:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pursuing this further. --Viriditas 10:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Quran page[edit]

I see that someone has again removed the large Quran photo... I see no consensus to remove it in the discussions. I think it should be put back up. Thoughts? Jwissick(t)(c) 10:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea. But there would be nothing that prevent them from removing the link. I would prefer to put it back where it was. I suspect that your idea might bring a merger vote instead. Jwissick(t)(c) 07:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I am already at 3RR.. He's all yours. I have reported him for a 3rr violation. Jwissick(t)(c) 08:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem.... As to bearing fruit, I hightly doubt it.. There is no pleasing some zealots. Jwissick(t)(c) 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank YOU for giving me so much good stuff to work with! I've been thinking about doing something since I stumbled across the old talk:darning mushroom article.

Love the idea of darning in literature and its social implications before mass-produced, cheap clothing. Please do add that! (There should be something in Little Women as well.)

I think I have a darned linen tablecloth somewhere; have to dig through my linen drawer and see if I can get a photo.

Do you think pattern darning and net darning should be separate articles or sections in darning with redirects? I am ambivalent. I can scan old illustrations of both. PKM 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we need an article on patching, with a side trip on patched jeans in the 60s as "country chic". Will add pattern darning and net darning as time permits.
Also I am thinking about starting Fashion and the movies (with some trepidation!); Kitty Foyle dresses and snoods in the 40s, and berets and long skirts in Bonnie and Clyde, and white shirt collars/cuffs with matching ties and suspenders in Wall Street - there's a lot there. Been working on costume design as prep for that. PKM 20:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Costume Blog[edit]

No, I didn't know about that! Another time-sink. Thanks! PKM 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure[edit]

Happy to help. I see what you mean about the constant reverts, I've just started trying to pile through the history on the Muslim page and the associated talk and user_talk page entries. Fun.

I have to admit, as a non-Muslim I don't understand this "catagorization" debate, what the difference or deal is here. Pardon my ignorance, but is this a Shia/Sunni thing?

One other question - why are the Muslim subarticle links removed in your version? I'm not sure I see why this would be an issue, beyond the fact that a couple of them are red-line links. Am I missing something obvious? (It wouldn't be the first time... today) --Krich 08:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I wasn't seeing or suggesting deletion due to you being irritated - just curious. As I said, I've just started piling through the stack of history, and just gave the links a cursory glance (I think I clicked on one of them and gave it a quick glance - less for content than to see if there was anything there). I didn't notice he had written them all. I'll read more!

--Krich 08:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Muslim Categorization[edit]

It's hard to reply to a question that you pose in the article history, so I thought I'd post my answer here. The change you made wasn't exactly what I had in mind; what you do was probably better. Since you made the change, I assume you have no problem with it. Hopefully, Striver won't either since it is a reasonable comprimise. joturner 21:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Post to Muhammad Article[edit]

I replied to your comment on the Muhammad article. Your input would be requested. You can delete this talk post afterwards or I will. I (as well as Striver) have also added comments revolving around the Ramadan split controvery on that article's talk page. Your input on that would be requested as well. joturner 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish-Arab conflict[edit]

Hi Zora, hope you're keeping well. The above is up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewish-Arab_conflict, you may be interested in giving an opinion. Palmiro | Talk 03:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

List of notable Muslim reports[edit]

If this and most all of the individual hadiths are not deleted then we have serious problems around here. gren グレン 03:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mecca vs. Makkah[edit]

I guess after reading the Makkah article and seeing how it is considered the official transliteration, I felt compelled to render those otherwise for sake of uniformity. Beyond this spelling issue, there are loads of arabic words that seem to have endless variations here on WP which to me brings alot more credibility to an encyclopedia if one spelling for the name Husayn is kept, as opposed to spelling it Hussein or Hussain or any other way you can think of. This was my motivation in regards to changing various "Mecca"s to "Makkah." Pepsidrinka 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Arabic Transliteration[edit]

That is a great idea in order to enforce some type of uniformity within WP. However, I would go even further and enforce it on every instance of every word. If for instance, a member of some unnamed Arabic guild were to correct the initial instance of a traslittered word and left the form into the Edit Summary, then it could be inferred that it is the correct form and other non-Arabic editors will be sure of the correct transliteration to use. Because once someone who has knowledge of the transliteration scheme makes known the correct form of the word, correcting future instances of the word should be rather elemantary. Pepsidrinka 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Zora, consencus for the template was "keep", i put it up on all the relevant articles. Don take them down against the majority vote, you where the only one voting delete. If you still want to get ridd of ít, put it up for vote to delete again. --Striver 03:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem[edit]

It seemed to have degenerated into a "My Race is the best" attempt. Yours was clearly the best version. Ná Abair É! --Irishpunktom\talk 12:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam[edit]

Hi. A new user, GreekWarrior, has come and is doing the usual. Yes, that means that I am once again a Muslim and an idiot. He might not be too far off on the idiot thing although I believe his reasons are all wrong. In any case you may want to look at that page... even though it's pretty hopeless. Then again most pages are these days. It's times like these when I think JuanMuslim's boycott campaign makes more and more sense. gren グレン 03:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I just proposed making a bibliography section of the article since our work is so bad... maybe we can't get worthwhile critiques out there... but that got me to thinking about the subject more. I am leaning more towards finding "Criticism of Islam" to be a worthless article that should be split into "Islam and human rights", "Islamic ethics", or titles related to those subjects. We simply are not exploring the depths of the debate in that article and I'm not sure how we do discuss it becauase neutrality seems to mandate that we are not only representing the critique on Islam. Whenever you have time weigh in. Have a good day as well. gren グレン 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't want to get rid of the article in the short term by any means. I was just talking about ideals in the long term. Hopefully someday I will do some research on this but I am not good at bringing myself into doing a lot of reading. I listen to too much C-Span radio and don't study enough theory. Even though that's not even in the Islam realm. I'm not cut out to be a very good scholar it seems. We'll see what happens and hopefully I can bring myself to look into a bunch of sources. I'm more interested in Toshihiko Izutsu's books right now. I find him fascinating. gren グレン 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

re:editing articles[edit]

I guess I just assumed that since it was up for deletion, and it was decided to be kept, it might as well be typographically and grammatically correct. However, I do now accept your view that editing these articles just add legitimacy to them. I agree on the point that it should be deleted due to its propoganda and many logical inaccuries. For example, he uses a Sunni hadith to accept a certain story, yet he rejects the same hadith later on. These type of fallacies should not be on WP. Anyhow, if you do manage to get it up for deletion again, you have my support. Pepsidrinka 17:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures from Bollywood actors/actresses[edit]

Hi, Zora, I have a question - maybe you can help me: What was wrong with Sushmita Sen's or Rani Mukerji's promo pictures from Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya and Hum Tum (or with promo pictures in general)?. We know where they are from, who the copyright holder is, the source and that they are made to promote a movie - we even have a tag for them. But these days they all disappeared in favour of some pix with unclear copyright status and origin. If there are copyright issues with the promo pix, I leave the articles the way they are, but if it's okay to use promo pix, I'll upload the old versions of Sushmita, Rani and Co., if their articles currently have some pix with unclear copyright status. Opinions? --Plumcouch 00:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

rv on Rajput[edit]

I recognize you reverted changes on Rajput and I assume your knowledge of the subject being a contentious one at the moment. Because I think you have reasons for doing so, may I request you to put a remark/reasoning on the talk page regarding the reverts please. My point is to set an example in accordance with the standard practice that reverts are not being carried out arbitrarily, and others should refrain from doing the same either. It will help. Thanks. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd come back to that article Zora. See my comments on the situation at User_talk:FireFox. Some of the newer literature is available online, see the discussion of references now buried in the ranting. I would really like to get a break from this madness, so as long as you look after things, I'll keep back a bit. I do think all the troll team does is poisoning the atmosphere, and I think blocks for the anons are long overdue, but I'll leave that to your judgement now. dab () 09:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

you don't want to be an admin?? You are one of the most saintly Wikipedians I know, with seemingly infinite patience, and great social skills. I can stick around on Rajput, but I felt let down, people on AN told me simply "don't feed the trolls". These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, they do not pretend to be clueless brutes, it is difficult to believe, but I think they are fully serious. It is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them. Seeing the state of things, I was prepared to run a tight ship, block for PAs and reverts, which of course resulted in this "RfC" (where nobody bothered to comment) and now FireFox says he considers me "involved". Involved with protecting policy, yes, but I couldn't care less about the topic itself. So unless I get some community backup, I cannot speak the only language these people understand. dab () 09:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
While I feel for you and sympathize that you were a late entry into this and had to pay the price, I'm afraid comments like above would not help your cause dab, and could show you in the light of ethnic bias (more so when, fortunately or unfortunately, you are an Admin yourself - and probably that's why you are termed as being involved). I think I understand your frustration, but would like to suggest restrain. I have tried to add my 2 cents in bringing the house in order, and I will try and see what I can do in the constructive manner.. But let me confess that I am too new to the history of the article in question, and can't promise to hang around all the time as there are other matters to address to as well. Hope my good faith on either side is clear - even if I need to criticize you. Thanks. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you are able to overlook that sort of people, Zora -- I am only lately beginning to realise that WP demands a thick skin. God help me -- in this, my inaugural quarrel, I have managed to pitch myself against both sides!! Dabmann seems very YOUNG, but has been patient and certainly needs support; yet I urge you Zora not to involve yourself on that benighted page at this stage for obvious reasons. Let us do something decent on the complaint page instead. ImpuMozhi 15:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the tip on the Babel template. As I've only been on WP, I am still getting used to the "culture" and the various ins & outs of WP. I wouldn't consider myself proficient in the Arabic language in the very least, however compared to the average joe, perhaps my proficiency in Arabic is comparbly greater. Pepsidrinka 05:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hadith of the Verse of Rajm[edit]

This AfD is not going to get it deleted... could I advise you to change your vote to "merge with rajm" since Rajm is fully legitimate and has a pretty nice Britannica article. gren グレン 21:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Early Muslim conflicts[edit]

Did you ever list this on WP:TFD? gren グレン 21:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is now listed here.
As for Toshihiko Izutsu I know nothing of his work on Zen... and pretty much nothing about Zen. Apparently the idea of Zen philosophy doesn't sit well with you :O. However, he's a semanticist and what I have read that he has done has been intriguing. A very different way to analyze Islam than what I'm used to. A guy from MWU! recommended him to me (along with Fazlur Rahman who I highly respect). I've read more of the latter than the former. Maybe if they have some of his at a library it'd be worth checking out; so you don't have to make any investment.
Yep, I'm on vacation now and trying to get motivated and finish my college applications. Partially due to the fact that I'm unorganized I ended up applying to UMD (Ph. D.) and UDel, GWU, and Georgetown (M.A.). Georgetown I applied for their coveted foreign service program and for their contemporary Arab studies one. The latter seems really interesting and I met with one of the admissions ladies there who was very nice. The good news is I should get into at least UD (I'm probably not good enough for the others schools)... and at UD I'd get to study with Muqtedar Khan who I had as a teacher in the fall and will this winter and spring. At GWU there's really no one I know but I'd probably take religion courses to have a class with Seyyed Hossein Nasr. At Georgetown I'd get to study with Yvonne Haddad and John Esposito (both hated by the Daniel Pipes type) who both seem interesting. At Maryland I'd get to study with Shibley Telhami, Jillian Schwedler, and Charles Butterworth. Not anyone like Keohane or the tops for political science Ph. D. programs... but, I suppose when I'm more interested in regional studies that's what happens. It's also probably due to the fact that I'm not well versed enough to know really who is in the top of the field. It's all still probably a dream since I have to get into these places and only being in undergrad for two years hasn't given me the best chance to attempt getting anything published or doing much of note. We shall see. Thanks for asking :) gren グレン 06:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Up late[edit]

Zora is lucky enough to be given candy. Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. My sleep schedule is so off that when my family went to bed I had nothing to do but be here. I got some good candy in my stocking :) I will read the clothing stuff tomorrow and I read Abu Dharr... good job. My only complaint is that too many sentences start with "He". I can't tell if that's a legitimate complaint or not but it's what I noticed first. Other than that it's a lot better. I really hate the use of "reversion"... if I'm ever talking to someone and they use it I'll say "yeah I reverted. I'm a Christian again". I suppose it shouldn't annoy me so much. Well, I've been up enough. Goodnight and have a great Christmas. I hope you're lucky enough to be given candy. gren グレン 07:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy late december to you! Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
My family tradition is that Christmas is the only day you can feel truly free to sleep in as late as you want. I'm the only one up right now (11:30) so I don't even know what my presents are yet! (Right now I'm just frustrated that Reed's proxy server is down right now and I can't get to the online journals; Mongol Empire desperately needs some rough factchecking.) Oh, and merry Christmas! Dmcdevit·t 18:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks Zora. I will check them out and Merry Christmas to you too. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 14:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot[edit]

Dear Zora, thanks a lot for your kind words. When I read I had new messages I was afraid one of the Rani Mukerji fans was damning me for removing two of her three pictures. Thank god it was you. :) And to you, also a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. :) --Plumcouch 17:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Persian literature[edit]

Thanks for you message et joyeux noel aussi :) as you seem to understand french. I strongly believe in the WP NPOV, as this is not a promotional place to advance people's agenda and perferences, although it is difficult to avoid systemic bias. You seem to be a very active Wikipedian with very eclitics interests :). Cheers --Khalid hassani 22:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's me, the Outlaw :-)[edit]

Zora, Saw your message demanding respect. Well dear aunt, truly I misjudged your age. Otherwise I wouldn’t have made such a silly (but not demeaning) comment. So I am sorry :-(

And btw, Gora/Gori is NOT a demeaning term, as some non-Hindi speaker Indians will tell you. It’s a Hindi word for Fair-skinned, and is purely neutral in usage. It takes its shades of meaning from the context of use, and in the right context can even be an affectionate term. What was the context of my use, I will leave up to you to judge as I guess it was fairly clear from my comments.

And you probably know these are my true feeling as this outlaw can’t be banned further, just like one can’t kill a dead man. So cheer up!! Let’s join in some more brawls on disputed topics, but I assure you that I am incapable of making demeaning comments against elderly ladies. That is just not me.

-- sisodia the outlaw.


Well, Paradoxic is a native speaker of Bullshit. You think users would not want to add templates like that... almost as stupid as adding "infidels" in my opinion. I hate that word. It's too confrontational when used by either side. In any case we've had to deal with Sunni/Shia mess... Islam/anti-Islam mess... all kinds of mess... It's a complete waste of time to check each page 5 times a day to make sure nothing stupid has been added in. I think I've mentioned it before... but maybe JuanMuslim's boycott idea wasn't so bad. The EB1911 project on wikisource seems pretty interesting... and the nice thing there is that it will get protected when it's finished so that it remains pristine. Getting a sense of doing something would be nice. Here you don't get that. Sorry that you hate it... and, well, I do too. Pretty tedious stuff. I'm not sure what can be done... discussion is fruitless and it tends to be that those with the most time on their hands are not always the best. You definitely deserve a break... too bad that all the work you deserve a break for would be washed away if you left. Catch-22 that Catch-22. Feel better, take a few barnstars (you know I probably owe you half a dozen if I were to give them like a normal man). I wish I had an answer to make this all better... but the only answer I can think of would get me banned :D gren グレン 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamic Mathematics[edit]

I am in the middle of updating that page and its work in progress at the moment. I was very surprised not to find any linkages or verbiage related to mathematics section as anyone should be. I am compiling some more information and will finalise the mathematics section in the next couple of days. 06:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

thank you dear auntie Zora, for the Hungarian greeting :) I am happy to say that it is a White Christmas, in Zürich. best regards, and may you long grace Wikipedia with your presence, dab () 10:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wilferd Madelung[edit]

Zora, you seem besotted with this scholar's work. Am I wrong in my perception that you are according him undue status and citations in Islam/Caliphate related articles, considering that much of his work and postulations are not in the mainstream consensus? I believe he is a credible scholar doing important work, but you are giving him attention out of all proportion to his standing amongst other important scholars. Just my two cents. --AladdinSE 11:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Article on Abu Jahl & Badr[edit]

I noticed that Abu Jahl's contribution to the battle of Badr has previously been up for deletion. Seeing how the previous nomation failed to delete the article, it surely should be merged. Do you think it is better suited for Abu Jahl or Battle of Badr. Pepsidrinka 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalize "prophet"[edit]

FYI, your talk page is >80K. Anyways, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style explicity says "Deities begin with a capital letter: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to Muhammad as the Prophet." It also says "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): 'President Nixon', not 'president Nixon'." Now just as Nixon may not be viewed as the president for citizens of other countries, it is still written President Nixon. Now analagously, Muhammad may not be viewed as the prophet for other religions, yet it should be written Prophet Muhammad. Pepsidrinka 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless you are sure that it didn't exist, its possible it was overlooked. I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to know about this incident you refer to. Nonetheless, as far as I know, the current Manual of Style as it is written now argues in favor of capitalizing prophet, as well as all titles. If you want to change that, go right ahead. But until then, I am in favor of capitalizing it. Also, if you could refer me to the discussions that took placed so I may just read the arguments for and against it. Pepsidrinka 03:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the history of the Manual of Style, it seems that the line about capitalizing Prophet came in at 24 November 2004 at 16:58 (which I assume is EST as per my preferences). Prior to the 24th, and as far back as May 5th of 2004, there was a policy to capitalize the 'm' in the Messiah. Now I don't know exactly the incident you referred to me, but it has been apart of the WP:MOS to capitalize prophet for over a year now. Pepsidrinka 03:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have this idea that this is some sort of campaign I have, as a Muslim, to capitalize Prophet. On the contrary, I acknowledged your sentiments on not capitalizing it, for the most part, based on your NPOV argument and I followed suit, until I did find the style guide. This has nothing to do with me being a Muslim. I don't have a problem with capitalizing Imam (the Shi'a Imams rather than the general use of Imam), Buddha or Dali Lama. As far as I can tell, you don't have a problem with either of those either. I am just trying to be consistent. I hold those as titles. While I don't follow them under their titles, I respect the fact that they are largely considered to be titles for their respective followers. Nonetheless, I repeat, if there is some consensus to not capitalize Prophet, then surely it could go through a seemingly easy vote and it would be removed from the style guide. I seem to have this obsession with the style guide, not because it already has what I want in it, but rather, its the only visible policy that WP has for instances like this. You say there was some discussion in the past on the village pump, but if that was the case, and I do believe you, the style guide surely should have for the discussion to have some legitmacy. Pepsidrinka 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I don't want you to correct the caps in Buddha. What I do want is to have prophet capitalized in reference to Muhammad. However, if you are going to insist on not capitalizing it, it shouldn't matter if I want you to do so or not. You should do so in the interest of fairness. However, I imagine that is going to start quite a riot on that talk board as well. And understandably so, they could cite the same thing and use the same arguments I and others have given. Pepsidrinka 01:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism / Frank Gaffney[edit]

Have you ever seen him talk about the term? I was watching C-Span's rerun of a 12/3 event at the Woodrow Wilson School hosting the Conservative Movement Conference. It was pretty interesting how he described it. In fact, he described it as a term polite to most Muslims since it showed the bastardization of their religion. The Islamofascism article also references Malise Ruthven as one of the first uses of the term which I found interesting. Academic conservatives like these are so great... because my exposure to conservatives is through Fox News since most of my teachers are liberal constructivists. gren グレン 19:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

With all respect, Gren -- he is a blatant right-wing ideologue [[5]], and his opinion on whether or not it is "polite" to equate my faith, by means of a snappy catchphrase, with the policies of Adolf Hitler is entirely irrelevant. BYT 21:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Workshop. Fred Bauder 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic numerals[edit]

Hi! User:RN moved the article to Arabic numerals despite 28 votes favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and only 17 favoring "Arabic numerals." He argues that if we don't count voters with less that 150 (or sth like that) edits, only 56% voters "support changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals", while at least 60% support votes are required. However, it was agreed between all parties in the beginning of the vote that the proposal is to move the article to "Arabic numerals" from "Hindu-Arabic numerals." It was also agreed (though I thought it was very unfair) that:

  • Those opposing the move have the advantage that it won't be moved unless there's a 60% majority
  • Those supporting the move have the advantage that the person proposing the move can do the *short* opening statement.
  • For all the rest of the voting procedure both parties are equal. (quoting Francis Schonken from 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

I would definitely have preferred it the other way round, since I think an opening statement makes a HUGE difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. The present situation was accepted with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. Thus, only 40% oppose votes were sufficient to retain the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." In the present situation (with over 60% voters opposing the change), I find the move to "Arabic numerals" ridiculous, besides being completely unjust and unfair. Your comments will be appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit war at Muhammad[edit]

Hi Zora.

Can I have your views on the ongoing edit war at Muhammad ? A user User:Mistress Selina Kyle insists on including an external link to an atheist website Mohammedism which I think is most probably propaganda. It should be noted that Mistress Selina is not a great fan of religion. Thanks in advance. MP (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle[edit]

Well she's the hot story tonight. I've fixed template WivesMuhammad... not using the talk page pretty much seems like trying to be aggravating. Well it shouldn't happen again. Nandesuka seemed to be pretty jumpy on the ban button when this happened last time.

I just saw that someone put up Ali Sina for deletion. I'm not really sure why. It's just that wikipedia is a battleground for both sides of this whole thing. Don't let them fool you... we're not really an encyclopedia. Hopefully someday though...

Conservatives aren't bad... it depends... I'd take academic conservatives over Michael Moore / Cindy Sheehan liberals. The economics make sense. You can see how in the EU states with lower taxes have had record Real GDP growth rates. With excess real wealth you can always find ways to do social justice work better. Is wanting to cut farm subsidies conservative? I don't know... Hopefully not too must stress from recent events. Have a great night. gren グレン 12:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wives of Muhammed[edit]

One doesn't need to be an admin to make an editorial judgment call. Rather than involving me - I'm not an expert in this subject - perhaps it is time for an article RFC? Nandesuka 12:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai & Shahrukh Khan pictures[edit]

Erm, hi, Zora, it's me, Plumcouch.

As you have noticed I have been removing the magazine cover picture from Rani Mukerji's article time and again, because a) I believe we should take "Mug shots" aka portraits and b) the text is quite distracting. That is why I have removed Hrithik's magazine picture, too. Anyway, then I noticed that Shahrukh Khan's and Aishwarya Rai's article both have magazine covers with lots of "distracting text". I mean, we could keep them, but I could come up with promo photos for them, too. And, just out of curiousity, do we or don't we have a one-picture-per-article-policy at Wiki? I just thought that maybe, displaying more than one picture in an article shows the popularity of an actor/actress, which is something that could be regarded as POV. And Madhuri Dixit, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan and Kajol have only one pic, too, and they are quite popular. Am I way over the top? Opinions? --Plumcouch 17:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not *PD* Promo photos, just Fair Use Promo Photos from movies. The good thing about them is that we know who the copyright holders are. BTW, concerning magazine covers - I guess they are all right, the only problem is: one time, Shez15 put up one mag cover which called Rani "Queen of Bollywood" and there is always a fan stumbling over that kind of photo and starts to disagree. --Plumcouch 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

AD vs. CE[edit]

Perhaps you misunderstood my comments on the edit summary and the edit itself. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comments. I did change it back to CE as it originally was. In the midsts of the revert war on the Aisha page, when the admin put it back to the pre-3RR version, somehow it managed to change from CE to AD. I do feel that CE is more NPOV and I believe I wrote so in the edit summary. Perhaps I was vague or ambiguous. And while you seem to discourage igniting old controversies, you seem to reference the "Prophet" issue I recently brought to the forefront. If Wikipedia under some sort of vote or however things are done manage to remove the cap of Prophet from the style guide, I'll accept that. However, I won't accept your argument that it makes others feel uncomfortable when as far as I can tell, the consensus (currently) on Wikipedia is to capitalize Prophet. Pepsidrinka 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Zora, thank you for commenting on my improvements to that article. I am an experienced editor on WP (three years) so I know what I'm doing (probably!) The only major change I made was to remove the sentence - Current tightlacers, lacking servants, are usually laced by spouses and partners. - which tells the reader not a lot because the fact that a corset needs someone else to lace it properly is mentioned in other places. That sentence jars so badly.

My other changes were also necessary, for example the use of "one" to mean oneself is bad, WP is never written in personal terms, just as "we" or "I" is not permitted. I made a few other minor improvements. If you want to revert all of it just go ahead. I never get mixed up in controversy so any of your changes I will not revert back. (I've also partly repeated these comments on Talk:Corset). Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)



Zora, A very happy new year and good wishes with your new project. --PamriTalk 03:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A very happy New Year to you and your family. And starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema is really a nice idea. I have signed, and shall surely contribute as far as possible. --Bhadani 14:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR--Khalid! 16:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Big Quran page.jpg[edit]

As this is directly based on Image:Oversized Koran folio.jpg, you can't relicense it to be in the public domain without the consent of both User:Quadell and Commons:User:Tatoute. At best, it can be tagged {{GFDL}} and/or {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, as the original is; both of these licenses only allow you to make modifications and redistribute them if the new work uses the same license. The image description page should also link directly to the source image, not just mention it in your upload summary.

The original image isn't PD as you claim, since it does have some (minimal) creative input - namely the woman who you mentioned on User talk:Dmcdevit as causing problems. It seems to me that a crop to just include the page itself would both eliminate that problem, and reduce this photograph to be in the public domain (as it would then be a purely 2-dimensional image of a 2-dimensional public domain work, per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). Losing the scaling is a big drawback, of course. —Cryptic (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The GFDL requires that derivative works stay under the GFDL. (Similarly for the Creative Commons-Sharealike license; the dual-license on the original image allows you to choose both or either.) This is so that you can't, say, take a Wikipedia page and claim a more restrictive copyright over the entire thing, and then prevent others from re-using your version. Being in the public domain would let anyone do whatever they wanted with it.
As for the crop, I agree that it worsens the picture considerably, though the frame's thickness does provide some hint. (I hadn't read the discussion on Talk:Qur'an yet before posting the above. It's unfortunate I wasn't aware of this a couple months ago; I visited the Smithsonian in August.) —Cryptic (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


I see I'm too late... it's not my fault you stay up so late (yes, yes, I know, "timezones") but I hiked to the summit of Camelback Mountain yesterday and went to bed early :) In context, I'd consider those edits near enough to vandalism that 3RR doesn't apply. The ones at the end where he (one of the few times on the internet I can call a username he and feel confident in it) simply takes out a few charactes to break the link certainly are vandalism. I left some scolding (and guidance) for Waleed, let's see if he's acting in good faith. For the record, I'm sure my pink freckly limbs are much more obscene than yours. :) Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)