User talk:Nima Baghaei/2006

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123   (talk)  23:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_side_face.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_side_face.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 12:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ayatollah Khomeini 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ayatollah Khomeini 1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ayatollah Khomeini 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ayatollah Khomeini 2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)
Please do not remove this template again, it menas I can't reset it, therefore it is considered vandalism, isn't it?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

Images of Ayatollah Khomeini
The copyright tag is much better, but there is still no source information where the image came from. Please provide the URL of the web page the images are on or the bibliography of the publication the images were taken from. Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I removed the no source tags and rearranged the information to the standard format. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Anencephaly.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Anencephaly.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mahmoud ahmadinejad peaceful.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Mahmoud ahmadinejad peaceful.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. joturn e r 02:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mahmoud ahmadinejad blue background.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Mahmoud ahmadinejad blue background.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. joturn e r 03:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC) a

SETI Contacts
Please don't cite unverifiable references...pleeease - your profile says you're an academic so you should be able to tell the difference - YouTube and Wikipedia etc aren't valid - I love your point in the SETI article but find some way to back it --Danlibbo 04:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC) data must be verifiable - and a guy standing up in front of a group people, talking about some guy he can't name and a situation no one else can verify is not evidence in itself - get it published in Nature, or SciAmerican etc --Danlibbo 22:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC) so go ahead and put up a conspiracy section - but don't make the mistake of plainly assuming that he's telling the truth --Danlibbo 03:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * put it this way - if I get up and make an official-looking video for YouTube declaring that global warming has, in fact, been caused by the decline in the number of pirates, and support that video with internet-based statistics (such as this) should Wikipedia take it as proof? (the answer is no btw)
 * by all means put up a conspiracy section, however you cannot state any of this as fact - it's just one guy! you can clearly state that this stuff has been said, but you cannot state whether what was said was accurate or not until there is respectable, published proof
 * the new section looks great - doesn't claim truth either way and just states the facts - i'd be tempted to put a statement regarding replies to the original statement, but there's a fiar argument against it - cheers - it's good that we could come to a consensus --Danlibbo 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * you need an admin to lock a page - put a note here --Danlibbo 11:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Locking the page to keep your text in it is absolutely inappropriate and will not happen. This is not how Wikipedia works.  Either improve the quality of the reference or plan on seeing that section of the article deleted shortly. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already discussed this with a moderator about the SETI, and as long as it is put as a conspiracy (not claimed as a fact, similar to a JFK conspiracy) it is acceptable. But how can I stop people from removing it (especially if they are not registered) without telling me why they want it removed? If a section this large is to be removed, I need to first talk to them as to why (debate maybe?). "We have confirmation - and I'm not going to give the name yet because we are trying to coax this guy out of the closet - but one of the senior most people in the SETI project" ... that is why the name cannot be given out (safety for the person's name). I don't understand why you will block this. For a guy to come out and make a statement like that, especially while at the same time bringing up Paul Allen's name. I don't think Paul Allen would approve of him doing so, yet I have heard of no denial at all from Paul Allen (he also brought up Carl Sagan name). For him to go public, in front of many people, and have his videos uploaded knowing well that he used Paul Allen's name is risky because of the wealth and influence Paul has (to use Paul's name within a lie would not do him any good), and for him to get away with it as a "lie" cannot work in this situation because Paul Allen has not stopped him. nima baghaei 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nima, first of all, there are no 'moderators' on Wikipedia. I'm a Wikipedia administrator, which might be what you're thinking of, and our job is to keep the project afloat by doing mop-work by preventing disruption.  When I removed the section in SETI, it was as an editor.  I removed it because, as I wrote on your user talk page, it does not meet Reliable sources.  This is not Art Bell.  This is an encyclopedia, and the claim in its current state (without a published, reliable source) does not belong here.  If you can provide a news article from a respected media outlet or something that otherwise meets the criteria listed in Reliable sources, then it can stay, but otherwise it will have to be removed. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why a "conspiracy" would need even more references! I have a video of a guy, coming out in public, using names most people would not use, bringing what should be considered a "conspiracy."  I do not understand why a "conspiracy" need a Newsweek or New York Times for a reference!  If I was to find a book written by the guy, and I referenced that, would that help?  You see, I cannot tell how I can backup a "conspiracy" with a "respected media outlet." Conspiracies do not start sometimes with respected media outlets.  If you do not find understanding with what I have said, I would like to speak with someone else on the board of administrator. If you remove this section, you must remove every conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, and if not, I will need to speak with someone else. nima baghaei 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, other conspiracy theories written up on Wikipedia reference articles and books that were written that talk about them. It is not appropriate to "start" this using Wikipedia, as you seem to imply above.  This is not a press release center, this is an encyclopedia.  See WP:NOR for more information on why this is bad.  If you'd like to contest this, then I suggest making your case on WP:AN/I.  Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, you need to clarify somethings. First of all, what is the "Wikipedia reference articles" because I would like to write one on the subject then.  Second, what do you mean by "Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now."?  Yes I am taking this to that board, and I will have them take a look at it.  Please go and remove all other conspiracy sections now. Hope you hear from me soon.  nima baghaei 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I've been unclear above, I apologize, but I'll try again. I've provided two links that are immediately relevant to why I have removed this specific conspiracy section:  Reliable sources and WP:NOR.  When you see text like this underlined, it means that if you click on it, you can view the article.  I'm not sure what "Hope you hear from me soon" means, but you sound upset.  Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.  - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not clarified anything new for me. I understand what the underlined text means, so is your assumption then I did not understand it?  I would like to know once again how a person can have the right to remove a section without first informing the user who put up the section why it was removed.  If you were the one who did it, I hope you will not do that for other users.  You have to inform them or give them notice the moment you remove it.  I do understand how to click on a link, thats how I was able to get to our short and continuous conversation page you are currently encoding in your memory.  Would you like my to clarify what I have just said?  You sound upset, believing that I am upset.  Once again, what do you mean by "Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now."? nima baghaei 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Calm down. Please review the policies I've linked to above.  I'd be glad to answer any questions you have.  In regards to your last question, I've removed the section in question from SETI. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you going to go and search for more conspiracy sections to remove? There are many, you should have a look, strange SETI was high-priority. What do you mean by "Based on what you've written above", I need to know which part and what I said that could cause you to decide so quickly to remove the section, for it seems from the way you have spooken that the you would have given me a lot more time then you actually gave me.  I have contacted the Disclosure Group, and I am asking them to send me references.  You have no right to just remove what I put up because of "Based on what you've written above."  nima baghaei 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You've given no indication that you've either read the links I provided nor the reason why the section was removed. Until you do, I don't see what we have to talk about as I have answered your questions more than once already. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

i want to clarify my position in this argument to you - while I don't believe that the clip you provided is, in any way, a citable reference, I do think that the item is valuable (and should be included) as long as it is recorded as somewhat unreliable - but for that it definitely needs a rewrite --Danlibbo 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)