User talk:Zora/2006archive2

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

Forgive me for being a lousy correspondent[edit]

... and please consider checking out the discussion at Talk:Islamofascism (term); proposal is to redirect to Neofascism and religion. BYT 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


We have instituted a strict "no proselytization" policy at the Islam article, but have failed to enforce one here. We haven't policed the links at ALL. I'm suggesting that instead of allowing every dang sect and sheikh to link to this article, that we limit links to academic ones. In ENGLISH. The link section is growing like cancer. If anyone knows of any link directories to Quranic studies, we could link to the directories instead of to the various sectarian sites. Zora 18:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but once again there is no need for instigation Zora. You said -
I'm suggesting that instead of allowing every dang sect and sheikh to link to this article, that we limit links to academic ones. In ENGLISH."
I won't go on and on about how you are typecasting people. Instead, I just want you to realize that that kind of comment is unacceptable on Wikipedia. joturner 20:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what "kind" of comment is unacceptable, or why objecting to links to translations in URDU is so wrong. Zora 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually am not sure which links you were referring to because it doesn't seem like any of your recent edits have related to the Related Links section. However, that was irrelevant in my objection to you typecasting editors as "sheikhs" and people from "every dang sect" (clearly that was not meant in a positive way). Again, I don't mean to go on and on about this, but you asked. See Wikipedia:Civility if you need a further explanation. You certainly could say what you need to say (including the "in ENGLISH" part) in a nicer manner. joturner 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I was not calling the editors "sheikhs". Sheesh! Sheikh seems to be a title awarded to any Muslim scholar/speaker/teacher by his devotees. There are thousands of them speaking and publishing. There's a problem in singling out a subset of them as notable enough to be featured as Qur'an commentators. (Of course, we haven't done any singling -- we've let anyone add any "sheikh" to the external links.) Rather than try to do quality control, which is inherently divisive, it would be better to limit links to academics and venerable and safely dead scholars, like Suyuti. As for saying "dang", that's an expression of frustration. Not obscene. It is bowdlerized. I reserve the right to say "dang" of anything, including the Buddha, the Virgin Mary, President Bush, and Francois Mitterand. Relax. Loosen up. Use slang and have fun! (That dang Zora) Zora 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Zora, I know that you are busy, but can you take a look at the history in the past 24 hours - Pizzadeliveryboy's edits, my reverts, his revert and the ensuing discussion on talkpage?? TIA, --Gurubrahma 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Please add subject to yr edits. I almost missed it!!!

Anyways, what was so mangled about the Controversies section. I usually edit because a lot of repetitive words and phrases tend to come in into edits (again POV feel free to dispute, but I am sticking to my guns!!!!!!! :-)).

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


First rule of writing an encyclopediac article: Do not level accusations, even implied. Never mind if Bollywood plagiarizes, copies or even trashes other people's work. But Wikipedia has no business passing judgement - specifically, by omitting the word 'alleged' you are jumping into the bandwagon, so to speak and leveling an accusation, albeit implicitly, which is not what an encyclopedia is all about. So if there is a scent of wrong doing in the actions of the subject about whom the article is being written, you ALWAYS use the word 'alleged' - its common sense, polite and saves you from something called 'libel' - ever heard of that word??

As far as my english goes, I will reserve opinion.

Pizzadeliveryboy 21:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Your response to the Nepotism Q was interesting. It seems to me that you have taken to passing judgement not only on Bollywood but the entire nation. If you think that most Indians are nepotistic and hypocritical, fine by me - but it would be nice of you keep that judgement to yourself. No need of spilling your vitriol in public fora.

Pizzadeliveryboy 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

what nonsense[edit]

Zora wrote:

You think nepotism is bad, and therefore think that I'm "accusing" Indians of tolerating it. You miss the point. It seems to me (as someone who's never BEEN to India, just read a lot of books, magazines, newspapers, websites, and watched a lot of movies) that it is taken for granted that there's a place for your relatives in your business. Hum Aapke Hain Koun -- Prem is given an auto dealership, or some such. I haven't read any Indian commentary on the movie that says, "That's bad". I've seen a few films that take the unconnected jobseeker's POV (Fiza, Heri Pheri) but they are far outnumbered by the "family business" films. It's a different perception of the world, so far as I can tell. That's not vitriol. Zora 21:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I am assuming that nepotism aint that bad, according to you - fine by me - you are entitled to that opinion. But would I assume, upon seeing every Hollywood movie, that most Americans have loose sexual morals (Rumor Has It, Can't Hardly Wait), or are violent (The Terminator). Cmon, this is mass entertainment - you can't judge an entire country based on what you saw in a movie, for chrissakes!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

you want to change your mind?[edit]

Go visit India!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Events with the Sahaba 1/2/3[edit]

I noticed you mentioned that these 1/2/3 articles should be deleted, back when they were created. Yet, as far as I can tell, none of them went through a AfD. Any particular reason you refrained from doing so.Pepsidrinka 04:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Ali Revision[edit]

Hi, Zora; I thought about your latest revision on Ali regarding the events that occurred shortly after Muhammad's death, and concluded that it is a vast improvement over the past versions. For one, it is far more precise--it is far from clear upon Muhammad's death that Ali's followers thought Ali SHOULD succeed. What is more clear is that once Abu Bark assumed the caliphate position, his followers did think that if anyone, Ali should have been the successor. Excellent work. I'm just going to do a very small revision clarifying that it was not only Ali's friends and followers but many other Muslims who thought Ali should have succeeded. Don't want to give Shi'a zealots another excuse to raise hell =) Saltyseaweed 19:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello =[edit]

Hi, I just want 2 tell anyone that is concerned that i have added and awards and nominations section on Preity Zinta's page. It looks like Shez15 (or whoever he is) does not want it. If anything is wrong with it, i don't mind referring to the old version. Please have a look...Thanks Pa7

Sorry i meant to say "i have added an awards....." Pa7 00:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


I hope my lame attempt at humour was not over the top. Tintin Talk 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just Wondering[edit]

Zora, are you Muslim? Are you desi? Zain 06:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. :) You're excused for not being desi :P, but as for Muslim, maybe I'll see you on our side one day. lol Zain 06:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Our material - Alhambra Productions[edit]

For your information, Alhambra Productions is the official distributor and producer of Hamza Yusuf material. We find it offensive to be removed from our scholar's wiki page without any clarification on your part. We would highly appreciate if you cease and desist from removing our content. Thank you. Alhambrapro 23:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look[edit]

Hi Zora. Please take a look at Sharia where an editor has started making major pov edits to the page. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still going on except his reverts are getting more sneaky. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments[edit]

If you feel that you own that little space on the web, so be it. If you are in charge... Alhambrapro 00:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If Hamza Yusuf himself recommends that we should post our links, we you listen then or are you still 'in charge'? If we can't submit information that gives more information about Hamza Yusuf, then why have a wiki page at all? And why allow other audio that Hamza Yusuf was not involved with? Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions instead of removing more links. Alhambrapro 03:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamic arts template[edit]

I created the template just mechanically, to get that ugly HTML out of the article namespace. I'm glad to have been of some service, but I'm not competent to take up the template as a project. I know next to nothing about Persian arts, and I don't even know anyone who might. I've placed your talk page on my watchlist, so you may reply right here, to keep the discussion all in one place. --Smack (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The template[edit]

hmmm. good suggestion. Let me see what I can do. (I'll dig up my image archives to see what I can find). But it'll take a few days maybe.--Zereshk 00:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Im still workin on it....--Zereshk 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Now its done. :) --Zereshk 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Greetings on India’s 57th Republic Day. --Bhadani 08:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike18xx replies[edit]

Mike, Muslims argue about honor-killing too. You might be interested in reading the discussion at [1], at a blog called alt.muslim, for progressive Muslims. It's a good example of different people drawing different conclusions as to "real" Islam.

The fact that they argue isn't gemane, Zora; what matters is what punishments ARE enforced (or, alternatively, not prosecuted for as being straight-up murder) in nations under to sway of clerics who profess to be scholars of Shariah. All the talk about "argument" and "disagreement" is just mis-direction away from the very, very crucial fact.--Mike18xx 19:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike, you seem to be assuming that the Taliban, or the Wahhabis, or Hamas, express the real, true nature of Islam. To do so is to buy into THEIR rhetoric.

Nonsense; I merely observe that they CLAIM to be the "real Islam" (as opposed to everyone else purporting to offer "real Islam"). Which is actually the "real Islam" is of no concern to me; what DOES matter is who runs what country, and what they're doing.

Fred Phelps, of, claims that he preaches the true Christian gospel; does he express the real, true nature of Christianity? 99.9% of Christians would disagree.

If Phelps ran a country under an iron fist, he'd be talked about.

The Islamists are less marginal than Fred Phelps

Totally preposterous -- The Saudis have build madrasses all over the world, Osama's boys will blow themselves up in your face to get your attention, and there are plenty of others who'll happily slit my throat because I'm a kafir or rape you because you're outdoors unescorted and back-talking to a man. Meanwhile, anybody who wants to avoid Phelps just clicks a button on their TV remote.--Mike18xx 20:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good :-)[edit]

Yep, back in school for a week now. Incidentally, there's currently a case on WP:RFAr (which may be moved to it's opened case page in the next few minutes) centering around a dispute at Reed College. Something about drugs, I recused :). I think Hum will always be Western (Livy right now), but I took a course on late imperial Chinese history first semester, and got to read the first two of the Four Books, and I'm in a pre-imperian Chinese religion/philosophy class right now, which has some Analects on the syllabus. And, I've been hired by my history professor to work on a research project, centering on 19th century fur and timber trade US-China/Japan. So, a lot of China, which I hadn't expected, but am enjoying a lot. And now I'm thinking about taking the upper level China courses, who knows. Hm. Really busy right now with classes, Wikipedia, and job, but not regretting it (yet...). Dmcdevit·t 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I loved Firefly! I think Joss Whedon is generally one of the more intelligent directors out there. Though I haven't seen any television in months now. :) Dmcdevit·t 06:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Muawiyah I[edit]

Seems alright. Though I did a quick search and most sites seem to refer to him as Muawyiah ibn Abi Sufyan, the user included the grandfather Ummayya and the tribe (Quraish). Pepsidrinka 05:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Zora, its not some shiah cursing out Muawiyah, the eng would go like this (muawiyah ibn abi sufyan al ummawi al qurashi) basically I added the "ummayid Quraishite" which is standard in arabic biographies of the classic type to differentiate between similar names shared across tribes.Wilis.azm 06:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Aayitha Ezhuthu[edit]

Hello. Um, I saw on Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema that the title for the film "Aayitha Ezhuthu" is actually wrong. Actually, the title that rolls on the screen while watching the film reads "Aayitha Ezhuthu".

No problem[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I assure I will not be doing any of that which you listed. :) If there are any projects of which i can be of assistance please let me know. I am currently working on a few things I pulled of the site when updating the arabic. One thing I would like to know is: If the actual article title is incorrect (as is the case with taba'een)how to you change it? Wilis.azm 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dil Chahta Hai stub[edit]

Hi.Dil Chahta Hai article is very informative and quite self-sufficient no doubt.But that does not mean that the article does not need any more works.For example,there are 5 to 6 links in the article that are in red color- may be these links can be created.For example, in the infobox,no distributor is listed.These are very small deficits compared to the excellent quality of the article,but still can be made available.

The synopsis can be worked on.I don't mean to tell the whole story though.A few external links to some critical reviews could make the article even bettter!One or two screenshots could elicit more interest in the uninitiated reader.

Undoubtedly,there are many other Indian film articles that need much more improvements.And Dil Chahta Hai is one of the best Indian movie articles.Sill, I thought it was not a complete article.Thats why I added the stub.Dil Chahta Hai being an extyremely good and popular cinema, there is always scope for the betterment of the article.Ciao--Dwaipayanc 09:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Caliph edits[edit]

Hi Zora! I moved the edits (rewording and adding sourcing -- Hulagu's legendary cruelty was in full force at Bagdad! -- to the Battle of Bagdad. I am glad you saw that I certainly did not intend vandalism, quite the contrary, was trying to show the almost unbearable sadness of the end of the Abbasid Caliphate. When I lived in Cairo, the scholars there still spoke of the Sack of Bagdad with horror. I bow to your judgment, and moved the edits, with additional sourcing, as you suggested. Take care, and as I noted in that article, it was Umar, who first adopted the title "Commander of the Faithful." By the way, your work on the article on Ali was quite good, though I know a few Shia who would disagree, lol! old windy bear 17:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:ZoraHi Zora, I added some additional material to the Battle of Bagdad, 1258 -- if you get a chance, I would appreciate your input on whether you thought the placement of the edits enhanced the article or not. I liked them, but I prefer a dispassionate soul to take a look, and give me the verdict! My goal all along has been to try to convey the extent of the incredible cruelty and savagry of Hulagu Khan, and it's full viscious impact on the City of Lights. Thanks again...old windy bear 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora HI Zora, I understand the reasons for the edits. I did add more material, which was VERY carefully sourced, and will add more of the antedotes as I can source them more than with one work. (actually, before I add anything antecdotal, I will run it by you first) If you will notice, I used the Muslim historian Wassaf for much of my new material, and have sent for more. i read Arabic, so will be looking for Islamic sources, not western, before restoring anything else. I do think that readers need to know the extent of the destruction to the country as a whole -- there is no question the Mongol destruction of the canal and irrigation system turned the country into a desert overnight! Hopefully you will like the additions, becasue again, my intention is only to show the horrific extent of what Hulagu did, and it far exceded the normal Mongol sack -- remember that in the end, the city did surrender. The mongols did not have to take it entirely by force, which in the normal course of things, would call for some pillage and rape, but not entire destruction. Hulagu Khan hated the Caliph, probably because he was a symbol of a power greater than the Khans, and his feelings dictated his actions. By the way though, the material from The Mongol Warlords was published in 1998, so it is fairly modern! But I think you are right, we need Islamic sources, and I will get them.old windy bear 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora Hi Zora, I agree that a historian -- I have degrees in history -- has to be like a detective, sorting through legend, and propaganda, to find the best facts we can -- after all, we are reconstructing events that took place almost eight centuries ago! Here is my problem, with all respect, I believe you are dead wrong when you say I am too critical in attributing later events -- the destruction of the canal system, and irrigation system -- to the Mongols. ALL histories, all of them, whether east or west, attribute this directly to the Mongols. With all respect, I also worked in the environmental field for 20 years as a manager in water treatment and wastewater reclamation. There really is no question historically, as to what happened. Lord, I sat in a meeting in the AWWA where the Iraq situation and it's causes were specifically discussed by environmental experts plus historians, and all agreed: The Mongols destroyed much of the system prior to their attack on Bagdad, and the population was simply not sufficient afterwards to repair and maintain it. If you can find me ONE SOURCE, just one, that has a different finding, I would like to read it. I am aware of the necessity of extreme carefulness in irrigation -- but Zora, you are overlooking that this particular system had worked well for at least a millinium! Zora, I believe you are a good historian, I just respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions. HOWEVER, this is obviously a labor of love for you, and I am just trying to help, so I am not trying to irritate you, nor will I post things you oppose -- though I believe in some instances, you are wrong. I am here to help you, not irritate you, but please think about what I wrote.old windy bear 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora I hate to admit this, but I like your style of putting an article together better than mine. You did an excellent job on that article. If you have any articles where you think I might be of some use -- I do read arabic, greek and latin, and am a fairly knowledgable historian on the religions involved, the religious wars, the non-religious wars, et al, I would be delighted to help. I defer to you on final edits, even when I disagree. And again, you did an excellent job on this article. old windy bear 04:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

ZoraHI Zora, i agree that Verbatim accounts of old speeches and letters are to be distrusted, unless actual copies of the letters still exist. Historians were happy to invent letters and speeches -- but that messages were sent from Hulagu to the Calpih and answered is accepted history, and Abdullah Wassaf, a HIGHLY respected Muslim historian of the age, is one who put it in writing. However, you are correct in that a direct copy from Hulagu himself does not exist - but then it should be removed from the article on Hulagu, for consistency, don't you think? (for the record, I did not put it there, but did use the same quote which John Woods translated from the old Muslim histories -- remember that a Persian historian would have had special access to Hulagu since his Khanate was capitaled in Persia). Other than that, you are a better writer, so your edits were good ones. I do think though if we are taking a position that quote should not be used, it should be removed from the article on Hulagu Khan as well. I have not been here as long as you have, so I toss that issue to you, but believe since you are correct that no direct copy of the message exists, only accounts of it, abeit from reliable sources, that it is legitimate to object to citing it as a direct quote -- but then we should take the same stance wikipedia wide on that quote![User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 12:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Zora...DID was actually recognised by DSM in 1994 so intro was in factual error, best it gets out of that?

Please remember, DID is a psychiatric hypothesis, NOT an established fact, psychiatric jargon if you like. Remember, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - those are wise words. Best the article defines the hypothesis accurately and includes a reference to the various controversies and alternate hypotheses.

Personally I do not understand why, when the topic is so emotive, alter is just a stub. I also do not really see any reason why multiple personality redirects to DID. Surely THAT is the place where the reality of multiple personalities, independent of APA hypothesis, should be explained? --Zeraeph 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, can I pop all the discussion from my discussion page to DID discussion where it belongs? --Zeraeph 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading a bit on the discussion and now I really have a better understanding of your concern about the pro/con debate. I've been sonewhat of a "self-appointed" housecleaner since the controversy over Wikipedia last year, trying to straighten out stuff and sticking my nose abruptly into things. But as people come in, if they have complaints, we'll just re-assure them that they are heard with open ears, but also be appropriately firm in keeping some limits on the pro/con material. There's a similar problem with many articles (see Pedophilia!). I come to things wanting to focus the articles so they will be solid and not wish-washy, but usually end up playing "musical chairs" with pro/con links. I'm gaining a lot of experience with dealing with the pro/cons though.
Why am I saying all this? I'm long-winded and not used to talking to someone I can't see. So that often = too many words. But I'm also a natural communicator, and just wanted to communicate about the pro/con issue, as I suspect it may arise again. --DanielCD 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


WEll just a suggestion , its always better to write the alphabets ( with sound ) with your own hands , & put it in a place where you can read/revise it at least thrice a day . Or mount it on the wall . I used the same technique when I was learning to read Hindi . Although it was much fun since my teacher was a girl . Also , if you plan to buy Pimsleur , or Rosseta stone , Pimsleur has got Leventine accent ( spoken around Sirya ) , which is very different from the Saudi accent spoken outside the arab regions by all non arabs . RS is better , but without grammer , its boring . Still its much better than others . Cheers . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tawhid / Salafi[edit]

Hi Zora- I am a little confused since I didn't add any information on Salafism (nor do I subscribe to Salafi thought). The Salafi stuff was there already (and personally I think shouldn't be since Tahid is a concept in Islam above sectarian opinion). I was wondering what in particular made may statements "Salafic" in tone? Thanks, Abdullah Tahir.

My comment on talk Muslim[edit]

Why did you remove my answer on the talk page? Was it wrong? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: I'm just swamped[edit]

Zora, I think when you come back, you'll have to remove lots of my writings. :D. But don't worry, there is a user with IP who is defending the Non-Muslim part of the edition. But seems that this user doesn't want to move all Muslim arguments to the end. He reverted my edits. :(

Good luck with your Zen work (Isn't Zen related to Buddhism and not Hinduism ?!). Aminz 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Abu Bakr[edit]

Can you check the article? There seems to be an anon who is inserting a lot of the Shi'a side but how much of it is enough. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you there 100%. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly CltFn is now on on Prophets of Islam trying to tell us that Muslims obey a different "diety" than God. Meaning that Allah is not God and failing to understand that God is not the same as "god". [1]. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just making the point that we should not push the Islamic POV that the Islamic Allah is everyone's god in the article, Allah is not the Buddhist's god for instance.--CltFn 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
God does not mean "god" as in a Hindu god. Very sneaky CltFn but not surprising. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you not conceive that perhaps the entity you call Allah , may not have any existense in the belief systems of non Muslims? I understand that in your POV your Allah is everything, but you should not try to impose that POV on everyone else in Wikipedia. Your Allah is not the deity of non abrahamic faiths, but you keep inserting that POV as though it was and that is not OK to do .--CltFn 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The diety of non-abrahamic faiths would not be God but god which proves my point and shows what is wrong with your edit. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually that is not the point. Within the Islamic paradigm there is a belief that there is a GOD, but there is no such belief outside of that paradigm. When we insist on imposing the Islamic or the Abrahamic monotheistic POV or paradigm in Wikipedia articles we have failed at meeting NPOV. Articles should be written from a neutral POV as you have said yourself , and the monotheistic Abrahamic POV is not neutral. So we should not be saying so and so is representing the word of GOD , that is abrahamic POV, we should say so and so is believed to represent the word of their god. But then I wonder if you would be willing to understand that --CltFn 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless you are going to go and change the meaning of God, just admit this mistake. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Does not sound like you understood a word I said. --CltFn 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I saw your latest comment on Talk:Muhammad. While I agree a new page would be good, I think a better title might be Pre-Islamic Arabia. KI 01:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sari image[edit]

Hi Zora. The Malayali sari image was uploaded by User:Kjrajesh. AFIK, it's the traditional saree worn by Malayalis. I'll try to get some pictures when I go home to meet my parents. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Zora, with respect, you want an article about the MPD/DID controversy instead of an article about Dissociative Identity Disorder. You don't want the article to describe or define DID (as somebody tried to last night), you just want the article to argue about whether it is real or not, which is irrelevant. The DSM IV TR is not POV, it is a diagnostic manual and the only place on earth where DID exists FOR CERTAIN.

If you want to argue about it, let's do it by the book, by posting it on all the relevant areas for comment, and as you reckon you are so much more knowledgeable and experienced that me I suggest you start the ball rolling and tell me where you are posting it...or I will --Zeraeph 12:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, why don't you just go back and check the beginnings of the "de-pragmatisation" process?

It very generous of you to concede that I may put a brief definition of DID in the into of what is supposed to be an article defining DID! *chuckles*

Listen, I have been posting on Wikipedia for a month (Cos I got into a controversy with an *sshole I have know years, and got hooked on Wikipedia, besides, if you can see a point in editing or disputing the near perfect articles rather than the ones that are a mess, please tell me what it is?) but I have been on the planet for nearly 50 years, which has given me ample time to figure out what a "total irrelevancy" looks like, and most of the DID article fits the bill to perfection.

I will concede that, as I rake my fine toothcomb through it, the DanielMcBride piece IS spun to be a little extreme POV in it's language (which is goin' away with my boot behind it), but I have to admit the thrill of seeing someone actually posting an academically accurate description of DID that I thought I was going to have to cook up myself (with little time, or verified, off the cuff knowledge) overwhelmed my powers of critical thinking over the fine details. But it's still the right information, all it needs is the spin taking out...and the controversy needs a seperate article...and as most of what should be going into that article will be your existing work, I think you should set the article up and choose the best title (though we can set up all options to redirect). --Zeraeph 12:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Gee, sorry. Not trying to be roude or anything, but I'm not his keeper. In light of current events, I am changing a good deal of my editing routine, and am not likely to have further interest at this article. Hope everything works out. --DanielCD 13:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


I dont think the ambiguous status of Nadira's daughter need be mentioned in an encyclopaedic entry. Till there is specific proof, we can leave it as it was. My earlier statement in the talk page was a suggestion, not an assertion.

Pizzadeliveryboy 15:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Baghdad[edit]

Hi, thanks for letting me know about it, but at the moment I dont realy know much about it. I'll try to dig up some info from the Shia pov, meanwhile you could ask somone else (who ha insiht in it) to have a look.

A personal question: Are you from Hawaii? , cos if u are i may need your help on this geology project. --Khalid 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Titles for Fatima Zahra[edit]

I have sorted them all. See

  • Zaidi 10:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Imam Husayn Shrine[edit]

A new page now exist having shrine chronology. See

  • Zaidi 10:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

DID Overhaul[edit]


I'm curious as to why you hit this article with a POV tag when (1) all the information there is documented scientific commentary that deflects the POV, and (2) no one said I was finished, which makes your commentary preemptive and presumptuous, unless I'm taking something personally that I shouldn't be. Kindly clarify. --Mjformica 15:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't see exercising my demonstrated authority on a topic area as huffing and puffing. Further, your degrees are not in the area at hand, and, therefore, irrelevant.
With regard to the article in question, the issues that you are putting forth will be noted in the text. That said, I will not get into the content of your argument with you, but simply ask that you remove the POV tag, and let me finish the work at hand.
Continued interference will result in administrative intervention, be assured. --Mjformica 18:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 06:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC): Not sure if this is the correct method of response, but in regard to what you sent me, I see "Another view is that multiplicity is not always a disorder (see: "healthy multiplicity") and that it can be normal to experience oneself as multiple, so that it is possible to be multiple without having MPD or DID." in the article, which seems to be showing the third view which you said was not present. I have no idea if Zeraeph removed it and someone put it back, but it IS in the article which I think is pretty good at this point.

DragoonWraith 08:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC): Going through the history, it appears to me that he only removed the "Contemporary Views" section or whatever it was, which got too much into the controversy and belongs best in the Controversy article. I assume he moved them there, but I do not know this. On the other hand, you removed lots of information. Perhaps it was worded as truth when it should have been worded as the theory, but people looking up DID are looking for that theory (and perhaps too the controversy, which they will easily see the link to). I haven't thoroughly gone through it, but I hope that Daniel McBride's information is still in the article in some form or another? That was a lot of information to just trash. It would have been better to have reworded it using things like "It is thought that..." etc etc, but I definitely think that information ought to be there. NOTE: I went as far back as McBride's edits, so I have not seen the "old article" (though I believe I read it at one time, weeks ago)
DragoonWraith 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC): Read the old one, seemed like McBride mostly ADDED to it. Don't think much was lost. If you want to point out anything specific, be my guest.
As noted, Zora, this conversation appears to be about your need to control this particular article. I have no investment in your investment.
That said, I repeat that I did not remove anything from the article, but added relevent information to it. I moved the controversy section up -- something that is antithetical to the Psychopathology Project mandate to standardize psych pages -- to accomodate the controversy...and to which I have yet to add -- or re-add because Wiki was wacky yesterday, and didn't save a bunch of my work -- again, breathe. --Mjformica 12:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Your post on the Psychopathology pages was noted, and received a response. You need to review the article before making statements that are not applicable. In addition, I will ignore your personal attacks, this time. --Mjformica 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes good work. I will also work on them when I get the time. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Any Feedback?[edit]

Zora, I have been editing the Criticism of Islam article for the last two weeks, but nobody is giving me any feedback. No revert! Nothing. People used to revert my edits in 5 minutes :), but don't know what has been happened. Could possible please have a very quick look to the article. I know you are busy but just a hint will be enough. Thanks.--Aminz 10:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It takes a lot of time for the article to stabilize. There is no hurry. Hope you get well soon. Regards --Aminz 23:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Shia view of the Sahaba[edit]

The present version is horrible. How did this happen again? I thought we destroyed the rating system. In other news. Hi, how are you? gren グレン ? 04:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


No, we don't do permanent semi-protection. It is a m:Foundation issue that anons can and will continue to edit, and perma-protecting directly takes away from that. The only article currently semi-protected long-term is George W. Bush, plus a couple that have dedicated vandals. Muhammed etc only have drive-by vandals, which will never go away. Sorry. -Splashtalk 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Haha. I've been somewhat of a fan for a while. I own some movies I really enjoy and some not so good ones too (that were cheap experiments). However, my roommate and I have been trying to clear out the AFI's 100 years... 100 Movies list so I've been seeing a bunch of movies and wiki has been helping me track them and read about them. Since I just created Devdas (2002 film) as a stub to hopefully at somepoint create Devdas (1955 film), etc. when I see them I had to edit all pages linking to Devdas and if they referred to the 2002 film I disambiguated those links. So, that's why I entered your watchlist a bunch. It's also why I have almost 250 edits today already... and it's 6:28 am here. Do you have any specific recommendations for films (Bollywood or not)? I'll tell you if I've seen them.

Also, I need to reply to your e-mail... but, I'm taking 21 credits and... that makes me feel like I'm busy even though the classes aren't giving me any work. I think it's because I spend most of my might watching movies lately since this week has been at a rate of 2 per day. gren グレン ? 11:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your recommended movie list has Kondukain Kondukain, did you mean perhaps Kandukondain Kandukondain? Just checking thank you. rydia 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput[edit]

A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)