User talk:Zora: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:08, 23 December 2011

2004 1
2005 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
2006 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
2007–2009 1

Namecalling

To whoever left the insulting message on my talkpage, unsigned -- that was rude and cruel. Call me an alien if you want, but don't throw misogynistic slurs my way. Zora (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back

Hi Zora. The Bollyeood project on here has ground to a halt. We no longer have editors like you and Pa7 around to improve content like we used to. BollywoodDreamz has little time for wikipedia anymore with uni committments and a lot of Shahid's time is spent reverting stupid edits and fighting silly editors. Please consider returning and restoring order once again. We could hhonestly do with several hundred Zoras to keep the project in order and to improve the quality of content. Regards. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 12:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I second that. I think you were an amazing editor, and one of my favourite. I'm really sorry if you consider me as one of those "loons or ignorant POV-pushing fanatics". I'm not a nationalist, I never was. I'm willing to learn, but in this particular case, I just respectfully disagree. Anupam in fact contacted you to have you back on here to reinforce his POV. I still appreciate you for the efforts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Zora, please do not change articles until consensus is reached. Do not use sections on which you add information to deviously add your POV. No colloquial register. The language of the films is Hindi and people watch them because of the similarity between the languages and because Urdu words have been used from time to time.. If you do it again, I'll request admin help. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so...

how are you doing? It's been such a long time I don't think you even remember who I am :). Last time we talked, you were very stressed...thatdoesn't seem to have changed. Hope all is well with you. GNU4eva (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Saw your edit after adding the talkback message—better...--Supertouch (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Zora, you're sorely missed, especially for Islam-related articles, where it's quite difficult to find un-emotional, serious editing. All the best Giordaano (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood

Zora, please assume good faith and do not revert editors who are much more experienced than you are. If you are reverting something which has been protested by someone else, kindly discuss on the talk page first, and then edit.

Secondly, mention of other specific film industries is NOT relevant in the lead of this article. This article is about Hindi cinema, not Telugu, not Marathi and not Tamil. If people want to know what the other parts of Indian cinema are, they can refer to that page. Also, the user mentioned only several industries, while there are much, much more. We are not here to make choices. If you wanna add something, then rephrase it first, do not leave it for others to fix.

You did not even check what the user added and where he added it. He actually inserted his text within a footnote, which is a very wrong format. Next time please check before reverting.

For now, I added a short clause which makes the sentence clearer. If you think you can rephrase it in a better way, that would be great. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly was not my meaning, and if you felt so, I apologise. I do not own the article and I think not even once have I ever shown such intents. First, I never "ordered" anything. Second, I did not ask you to consult me but use the talk page. Thirdly, I said that because your revert was totally inappropriate and insulting. You just restored a text which was placed within a footnote, that's improper formatting, and you should have checked it before. The first thing anyone would conclude from that is that you are not assuming good faith on them and reverting them just for the sake of reverting specifically their edits.

I am aware of all the incidents you had to go through, and I've actually felt the same when people like you indirectly accused me of being a nationalist, while I'm not. My religion is none of anyone else's business. I like editing and improving articles, not fighting over scripts, but I had an opinion, I still hold it, and several intelligent editors share the same view. When I joined Wikipedia, I appreciated your hard work, though frankly I recently got very disappointed by your attitude towards me, which includes being occasionally rude and mostly assuming bad faith on my part. I cannot accept that. That made me understand why many people did not get along with you at the time. Previously I used to think there was something wrong with them, not with you. But now...

Just like you tell me of your previous hard work, I collaborated with many editors who always expressed their appreciation, even those you used to interact with back in time, such as Plumcouch, Pa7, Grenavitar, etc., perhaps with the exception of Shez 15, who is no longer active, and it doesn't really matter now.

If you're back, then good for you, but I somehow feel you were constantly angry not only then, but now too. That's not how it should be on WP, you must have fun, otherwise this place is not for you (I'm not referring to you specifically but to the whole breed of WP editors).

Anyway, there is a new clause in the article which I think is very good, so this topic should be probably closed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of Indian film actors

I have nominated List of Indian film actors, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian film actors (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sreejith K (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Bollywood scratch pad

User talk:Zora/Bollywood scratch pad

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Zora, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Zora/Bollywood scratch pad. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zora. You have new messages at Talk:Hadith.
Message added 20:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Zora. You have new messages at Supertouch's talk page.
Message added 22:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hadith

I see that it has been protected which looking at the history for today is a good idea. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected as well. Would have been quicker but I got logged out as I went from my talk page to the hadith page. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 07:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected it for a week. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

references

No problem: I am just happy that someone is adding refs at all! BollyJeff || talk 23:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Muwatta

Hello, Zora. You have new messages at Shaad lko's talk page.
Message added 04:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Histiography and nationlism

might be a good idea to include http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/ or rather the work covering the creation of the jewish nation and histiography. 2.102.189.208 (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not opening another front in the Israeli-Palestinian wars. No way. Zora (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

=) GNU4eva (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're being quoted

Hi. This is just a courtesy note to let you know a comment you made five years ago has been quoted in the current discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Zora, your reversal of my edits, which go in accordance with policy, is completely unacceptable, and more so the rude way in which you have done it, which I'm not going to tolerate any longer. Stop thinking that your opinion matters the most, and before giving support to such claims as "enormous film empire" and "Stars, rather than plots, were often the driving force behind the films", and a whole unsourced block of original research, read WP:CITE and WP:OR and kindly familiarise yourself with the process of Wikipedia editing. The introduction has been this way for years, if you want to change it then discuss. And your constant assertions that Bollywood is not the Hindi film industry do not make much sense unless you can prove reality is wrong.

Yes, the first thing that a reader should see is indeed the language of a film industry (particularly when it comes to India, in which every film industry is sorted by language, basically), and the lingua franca of Bollywood is Hindi, as it is mentioned in possibly every Indian film article, and almost every source on the article. The use of Urdu is mentioned perfectly, its use has been fading, and today most films do not even have Urdu scripts in the opening credits. "Encyclopaedia of Hindi cinema", the largest book written about this film industry, published by Britannica and written by the likes of Gulzar, as well as numerous other books which you can see on the net, acknowledge Bollywood as Hindi cinema, and this is how it has been known for years. Film certificates, too, mention Hindi as the language of Bollywood films, and the term Bollywood in indeed informal (and mind you, it is a term used to refer to the industry, not the industry itself).

Your attempts to erase them border on vandalism, and your penchant to accuse others of nationalism will not be taken lightly. Your insistence to see everything as negative and think that everyone is based on national grounds is of least interest to me. I'm not here to serve your agenda, and do not expect me, or anyone else, for that matter, to follow your personal preferences. Want to start another long discussion? Do it! But please do cite sources (which you never do, because everything you say is right, isn't it?) and do not feel you own Wikipedia because you do NOT.

Next time you revert, I will report you on ANI. Instead of dictating, enforcing your biased views, and coming here from time to time only to revert someone, I suggest you to contribute to the project by trying to improve it. I personally am trying to do it every day. Enough is enough. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 Zora, your reversal of my edits, which go in accordance with policy, is completely unacceptable, and more so the rude way in which you have done it, which I'm not going to tolerate any longer. Stop thinking that your opinion matters the most, and before giving support to such claims as "enormous film empire" and "Stars, rather than plots, were often the driving force behind the films", and a whole unsourced block of original research, read [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:OR]] and kindly familiarise yourself with the process of Wikipedia editing. The introduction has been this way for years, if you want to change it then discuss. And your constant assertions that Bollywood is not the Hindi film industry do not make much sense unless you can prove reality is wrong.
-Yes, the first thing that a reader should see is indeed the language of a film industry, and the ''lingua franca'' of Bollywood is Hindi, as it is mentioned in possibly every Indian film article, and almost every source on the article. The use of Urdu is mentioned perfectly, its use has been fading, and today most films do not even have Urdu scripts in the opening credits. "Encyclopaedia of Hindi cinema", the largest book written about this film industry, published by Britannica and written by the likes of Gulzar, as well as numerous other books which you can see on the net, acknowledge Bollywood as Hindi cinema, and this is how it has been known for years. Film certificates, too, mention Hindi as the language of Bollywood films, and the term Bollywood in indeed informal (and mind you, it is a ''term'' used to refer to the industry, not the industry itself).
+Yes, the first thing that a reader should see is indeed the language of a film industry (particularly when it comes to India, in which every film industry is sorted by language, basically), and the ''lingua franca'' of Bollywood is Hindi, as it is mentioned in possibly every Indian film article, and almost every source on the article. The use of Urdu is mentioned perfectly, its use has been fading, and today most films do not even have Urdu scripts in the opening credits. "Encyclopaedia of Hindi cinema", the largest book written about this film industry, published by Britannica and written by the likes of Gulzar, as well as numerous other books which you can see on the net, acknowledge Bollywood as Hindi cinema, and this is how it has been known for years. Film certificates, too, mention Hindi as the language of Bollywood films, and the term Bollywood in indeed informal (and mind you, it is a ''term'' used to refer to the industry, not the industry itself).
 Your attempts to erase them border on vandalism, and your penchant to accuse others of nationalism will not be taken lightly. Your insistence to see everything as negative and think that everyone is based on national grounds is of least interest to me. I'm not here to serve your agenda, and do not expect me, or anyone else, for that matter, to follow your personal preferences. Want to start another long discussion? Do it! But please do cite sources (which you never do, because everything you say is right, isn't it?) and do not feel you own Wikipedia because you do NOT.