User talk:Nima Baghaei/2007/2

Category:Peace activists
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've submitted a request for deletion of Category:Peace activists. The link in the box will take you to the discussion page. Regards, Cgingold 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Fife Symington III.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fife Symington III.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I don't particularly care if he's well-known in the "exopolitics community." We source information to reliable sources on Wikipedia. His e-book is not a reliable source. Marskell 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also don't care about whether he was the first to talk about it. It's an e-book. My kid brother can put out an e-book. It's not reliable. Read WP:RS or WP:ATT or WP:NPOV. Marskell 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "It's a primary source." Thank you for making my point. Wikipedia relies on secondary, not primary, sources. It's an e-book. It is not reliable and you have not made an argument otherwise. It's fringe pseudoscience. Read NPOV—pseudoscience gets put in its place here. Marskell 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I'm sorry, but I have to ask: please stop placing idiotic emoticons on my talk.


 * No, it is not a secondary source. As near as I can tell, it's a self-published manifesto from a pseudoscientist. I will continue to revert it. Marskell 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a self-published source of dubious reliability. Policy allows us to use such sources on articles about the authors but not elsewhere. Reliable sources have editorial oversight, fact-checking, and so on. The exception is for well known "professional researchers". Neither Salla or Webre are professionals because a) Exopolitics is not a profession b) they are both "researching" privately. These works are not published through a university, major news organization, publishing house etc. You have produced a Washington Post article making this very point about Salla. The entire page should be gutted and rebuilt. Webre and Salla do not belong on it except in the context of reliable third parties talking about them. Marskell 06:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me put this to you another way. I believe you wrote the following about Salla:


 * "His unconventional views have made his work the subject of considerable controversy and criticism within both the ufological and [mainstream academic] communities. Much of the testimony he uses to support his position is controversial due to a lack of empirical evidence to substantiate many of the claims. While many of Salla's sources are considered to be credible by adherents to the UFO Disclosure movement, critics argue these sources have been discredited for a variety of reasons, among these the dissemination of patent falsehoods in the content of claims made, and the misrepresentation of credentials."


 * This is wordy and needs editing, but is an attempt at NPOV, which I applaud you for. Given that you'r willing to admit Salla has been criticized for "the dissemination of patent falsehoods," how can we use him as a reliable source outside of his own page? See what I'm saying? It doesn't matter that he and Webre are famous or first or anything. They are not fundamentally reliable. Their exopolitics stuff should be used nowhere but on their own pages. Marskell 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 STOP  this conversation is over, please post anything else at the exopolitics discussion page, anything else inserted here will not be read (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Greer Photos
Wow. I'm not even going to get into the problems with those photos :-). At least it puts a picture on the stories going around about that organization's activities -SeanFromIT 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

UFO Organizations
Is that the preferred method here? I'm trying to create stubs as I go along. I'm finding it fascinating how researching one organization lands me to finding another - MARCEN to UFOIL for example.

One problem I have is that I don't think it would be appropriate for me to add the details about my own organization, The Anomaly Response Network. If you have a moment, could you stub something in about us? Feel free to interview me, of course. SeanFromIT 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments
Thanks, Nima, for your kind comments on the Maharishi Talk page. TimidGuy 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreate Area 51 discussion
Would you please recreate the best dicussion of the area 51 article. A lot of interesting comments aren´t visible on the page. So please do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.190.125 (talk • contribs)
 * nope sorry, but if your interested they are in the archive, just copy and paste them over (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Hellyer pic
By all means! -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Topics in Ufology
I follow the following rule for including something in a category: if there is nothing in the article directly related to the category, it should not be in the category. This is from the Wikipedia categorization policy: "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?". So please stop categorizing articles in which UFOs are never mentioned 'topics in ufology'.

I apply similar logic to the Topics in ufology article, which may be redundant with the category page. I appreciate that you are trying to tidy up the UFO article navigation, but you are also adding UFO flags where they don't belong. Michaelbusch 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about the Category rule, but as for this Topics in ufology those links stay b/c they are studied in the field of exopolitics (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 16:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. The articles concerned say nothing about UFOs, there are no notabile contributions to the topics (with the possible caveat of TM) by 'ufologists', and you should read my user page. Just because someone studies something isn't notable. If they made contributions to it, it might be. We don't have a list of all the languages studied by physics graduate students, for example. Michaelbusch 17:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * These are specific topics studied in Ufology and exopolitics, and yes it is notable especially if they are well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP resume all conversation at the articles talk page Talk:Topics_in_ufology ... anything else put here will not be read b/c it just gets time consuming jumping from one talk page to another (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Teslascope
I have recovered the article in your sandbox. - Mike Rosoft 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Nima, saw your edits on the Maharishi University article. You've done a nice job so far and have inspired me to help a little. I've been writing some text I'm intending to add. I alos have some pictures and may ask for your help. Gold Apple 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why???????
The dicussion of the area 51 article was neat! But then you destroyed a lot of interesting comments, which not even are included in the bad links to the dicussion of other years!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.216.231 (talk • contribs)


 * Just look at the archive there, if its not there just add it again (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who did that? YOU or we? If you did that, be politew and recreate it! The lost comments are safed in the page history (the last one before yours). - Thanks for your fast first answer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.199.147.193 (talk • contribs)

STOP, I have tried to find what you posted and attempted to repost it (Talk:Area 51), so if that is not it just try to find it in the history or just repost what you said, but dont send me anymore messages if you are just going to ask me to try to fix it again (just repost it or look at the history for you post and repost b/c I do not know which post is yours) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you call my edit "vandalism"?
I updated the UFO sighting page this morning, added a UFO sighting and fixed the chronology (it had 1954 coming before 1952). Then you reverted it, claiming it was vandalism. Whats up with that? Not cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.120.161.223 (talk • contribs)


 * you placed the date in the wrong order (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, 1952 is in the wrong spot. Take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.120.161.223 (talk • contribs)


 * never mind, you are correct, sorry bout that (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Archives
Maybe it´s your opinion that archives are very useful, but the archives from area 51 aren´t neat! They are useless. I know you meant it good, but would you please discuss this "problem" with us !? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.199.147.193 (talk • contribs)


 * Just repost what you wanted to say, if you want go through the history and find the message you want inserted and paste it back in, the page was very long to so you need to keep archiving the page to maintain a page smaller the 32k and also to maintain redability (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP, I have tried to find what you posted and attempted to repost it (Talk:Area 51), so if that is not it just try to find it in the history or just repost what you said, but dont send me anymore messages if you are just going to ask me to try to fix it again (just repost it or look at the history for you post and repost b/c I do not know which post is yours) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Who can i
Who can i talk to about some paranormal stuff that is reported here where i live? its about a haunting and a pretty famous one down where im at, but it doesnt have its article. User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

sweet thanks much, but the problem is since the place where these activities happen is so outdated, there isnt a article about it at all. should i start the article and then place the events below it?

oh and yes there are websites and stuff on the matter just no article here on wikipedia User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 17:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok sounds good ill get right on it =) thanks for your helpUser:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Its done but its way far from being ready i only had 30 mins for lunch so once im out of work ill source it. thanks again for your help User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch
Michael told me about the article, and it is dubious from WP:N, even in the current state. That said: DO NOT REMOVE DELETION TAGS FROM ARTICLES YOU CREATED, no matter what you think about the tagging. And many of us (Caltech students) edit Wikipedia. Michael is unusual in not anonymousing himself. I'm content with DHCP shuffling me through the Caltech IP block, since I don't edit that much.

Looking at your edit history, you need to learn WP:N. Concerning Topics in ufology: I haven't looked at all the references you gave, but I'm inclined to agree with Michael's reasoning. But he will probably deal with it when he gets back from his break. 131.215.220.112 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My references are fine, I understand WP:N, the final removal of the deletion request was not done by me, im agree that many caltech students use wikipedia (or atleast i would think they would) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am back from my break. Now, you are correct that the Teslascope article has been improved. I suspect that the anon above (who could be any of a half-dozen people) was refering to the Topics in ufology article. I again explain that "Topics studied by ufologists" or "Topics invoked by ufologists to support their assertions" is not "Topics in ufology".

You should indeed review WP:N, WP:NPOV, and a few other policies. You should also read this ArbCom case. Michaelbusch 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am already familiar with WP:N, WP:NPOV and yes they are the same thing (topics are studied given the definition of study is To acquire knowledge on a subject through concentration on prepared learning materials. (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP continue conversation at the topics ufology page and not here, it just gets tedious jumping between pages (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked User:Minderbinder to evaluate if your edits are such that you should be included in the ArbcCom Paranormal case. Michaelbusch 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Brigham_Young_University. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Nick Garvey 06:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry about previous edit, i think my browser cut of 3/4 of the page (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Topics in Ufology
I'll just take this chance to remind you about WP:3RR, you used six today. Someguy1221 07:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * why people remove references material I do not understand, I did try and still do try my best whenever i can to show that these are topics in ufology (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Teslascope
I have posted a response to Talk:Teslascope. In general, a re-creation of a speedily deleted article is not a candidate for speedy deletion, unless it meets the criteria on its own. - Mike Rosoft 12:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * cool thanks! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine article
Thanks, Nima. It was nice of you to find that article -- and to do all the work that you did on the templates for various articles in recent days, plus archiving the Maharishi Talk page. I had known about that article but didn't realize that it's available online. It's well balanced. TimidGuy 14:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * welcome (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

UFO/IFO
You correctly state that the Ralph Horton case was later identified. But so was the Roswell crash. Are you going to change it to IFO? Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Your recent edits to Topics in ufology violate WP:3RR. Any further such activity will be reason for block. Michaelbusch 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * nope i wont, references material is being removed so I am putting it back again (this is an exception to the rule) 18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The category is not a stub category and should be discussed at CFD not SFD. Stub categories are those which have an associated stub template that places articles in them (or end in " stubs" as per the naming guidelines for stub categories. Empty categories while short are not stub categories.  I have reverted the SFD nomination and invite you to make a CFD nomination if you wish. Caerwine Caer’s whines  20:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * awsome! im gonna give it a try, thanks(:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|left|30px| ]]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question.  Nish kid 64  20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:3RR. I don't see any correlation between the exceptions of 3RR violations and your edits to Topics in ufology.  Nish kid 64  20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * they are removing referenced material that shows that these topics are topics in ufology, my only intention is to undo what i consider their "vandalism" for removing referenced material without letting the "mediation" process in the talk page to occur first (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Topics in ufology
Nima, I and Someguy1221 and Philosophus have all explained why your proposed additions are unsuitable for the article. Their being referenced has nothing to do with it. I'd like to assume good faith, but I can't help wondering if you are being deliberately dense. Now, you will leave the article as it is. Don't try revert-warring again: you will loose. Run the Mediation Cabal if you insist, but here is something you must realize: just because something is referenced doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. Michaelbusch 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User block for 3RR violation
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Block is for 31 hr. (second violation) fishhead64 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to put the block in place, so block is now for 24 hr. fishhead64 05:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * people block me for reverting edits that were made by others were they removed referenced material... oh lord what can i do... *sigh* (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RenFile
I have added a "" template to the article RenFile, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Abu badali (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Report says US military gear sold to Iran and China
Why is this listed on your talk page? Are you the anon starting the article perhaps?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * its a good article! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 18:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I started it to, but I was not logged in at the time (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Barbara_Walters_1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Barbara_Walters_1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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 Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello, Nima Baghaei! Wikipedia thanks you for offering to help in the capacity of an administrator. Sadly, your nomination has been withdrawn as the nomination would likely not have succeeded. Major reasons for this are the limited time you have spent editing Wikipedia and the relatively low number of edits you have made to date; nothing personal. Please don't be disheartened - this was only done to reduce any ill will that might have been generated by the process.

If you wish to help Wikipedia in the capacity of an administrator in the future, you will need to be able to demonstrate why people can trust you with these very powerful tools. To do this, you may wish to help out with maintenance work - here are some pages that you might find helpful:


 * Wikipedia Backlogs
 * Deletion Debates
 * Administrators' noticeboard for Incidents
 * Administrators' noticeboard
 * Wikipedia Policy
 * Requests for Adminship
 * The NoSeptember Admin Project Statistics Site

Once you've spent several more months both creating new content and helping administrators out behind the scenes, you may be ready for another request to become an administrator. You might wish to try an editor review before another request to become an administrator; this is often useful before a new request for adminship and can help you decide if you are ready to stand again. Please remember that whatever happens, many of the administrators you see today on the administrator's noticeboard went through the RfA process at least twice before the community promoted them; one admin notably made seven attempts before succeeding.

Please don't take any RfA criticism personally; rather, look on the process as a constructive way to help you become a better editor. Please don't rush to become an administrator, but take your time and allow the community to take the time we need to be able to judge that we can trust you and your judgement. Look through the various policies and above all, have fun and enjoy yourself building Wikipedia. Once again, Wikipedia thanks for your nomination and we all hope you won't be too upset at the result. Best wishes. -- Nick  t  00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD for HR 333
Nima, I hate to bother you a second time, but FYI, the article we've worked on has been nominated for deletion. There are comments being gathered now to determine whether it should stay. Please see the "debate page" (available from the big placard at the top of the article) for directions on how to participate. Thank you!--OtisTDog 01:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Tag on HR 333
Nima, There appears to be a disagreement brewing on the page for HR 333 regarding use of the current tag. Your thoughts are solicited to help break the deadlock. I would appreciate it if you would express them on the talk page.--OtisTDog 14:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

your help
Hey friend, I want to take you up on your offer earlier for some help with Wiki editing. How do you import and position a photo in an article? Thanks in advance!Gold Apple 20:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Topics in ufology
This case has been opened, please see the case page at. Thank you!  Jody B 14:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nima, there is some discussion at the MEDCAB case that is awaiting input from you. Please help us move this case along. Thanks!  Jody B talk 19:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal templates
Just a quick message to advice you that the paranormal template should be edited by their original designer or with group consensus. This isn't a wiki rule, but it is good manners.

Changes to these templates have a knock on effect on a lot of articles.

perfectblue 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a cookie
Short though it was, Pleiadeans made me smile. Not only was it interesting, it was well sourced, and just about the only article I came across on new page patrol that I didn't want to nuke. A great stub, hopefully you or someone else will get around to expanding it. Keep up the good work! J Milburn 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * sweet, thanks! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ufo's spotted in india?
I added 2 more ufo incidents about india,looks like lot of activity is being reported there. Can you make a separate page about ufo sightings in india and can you tell me the source of the ufo in gurgaon,india? ps a good ufo audio by a pilot.very intresting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoH7CUBnCJ4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eabovetopsecret%2Ecom%2Fforum%2Fthread280529%2Fpg1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Tasmanian UFO Investigation Centre
An editor has nominated Tasmanian UFO Investigation Centre, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been a sheep like mentality at this afd - you might wish to contact re a resurrection of some of the info in different form, if you so wish SatuSuro 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

UFO on Google Maps
yo Nima, the UFO triangle on Google maps, you know this one: [30°30'38.44"S 115°22'56.03"E] what happened to it, i looked on the black triangles article and the image and the cordinates aren't there??? Tu-49 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of US House Resolution 333
An article that you have been involved in editing, US House Resolution 333, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/US House Resolution 333. Thank you. JasonCNJ 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

photo help
Thanks Bud!Gold Apple 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Portland Tribune move
Hi- just want to make a suggestion re: your attempt to move Portland Tribune to The Portland Tribune. I'm glad you're out there paying attention to such things, but in the future, it would be nice if you could first make a note on an article's talk page a day or so before you move it, and then use the "move" tab (or in this case, request that an administrator move the article, because the target article already existed.) Using the "move" function preserves the article's edit history, and its talk page; simply cutting-and-pasting text does not. For specifics on why this particular move is not appropriate, please see Katr67's comments at Talk:Portland Tribune. Thanks, and happy editing! -Pete 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * cool, thanks for letting me know (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bbsradio_logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bbsradio_logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Bigr Tex  17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Fife Symington III official.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fife Symington III official.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Allen3 talk 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jim Marrs.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jim Marrs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Numeric Citation Code Restoration
Thank you for detecting and restoring the numeric codes to the citations in the references section of the gravity control propulsion article. Tcisco 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * very welcome (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a vandal
Do not accuse me of vandalism. I have NEVER vandalised this site. I removed a picture from the Unidentified Flying Object article after it was discussed (and dismissed) on the talk page. Totnesmartin 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry bout that, but where was this discussion? i cant find it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 03:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted :) The discussion is here; it contains a link to the image talk page as well. It's not a photo generally believed to be of a UFO, or even a famous hoax - just an obscure mistake that's come along recently. In removing it, I was simply being bold. Totnesmartin 08:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * i dont agree with the removal, that is why the word "purported" is used, there is no reason at all to remove this picture, the subject (whether real or not) deals directly with the subject at hand (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Favor?
Hi, Nima. It's been a while since I've imposed on you. : ) So here I am again. I noticed something pretty weird in this article: . The licensing info is showing up as text in the article itself. It's not supposed to be like this, is it? Can you take a look? Thanks. TimidGuy 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * wow wierd, well i took them out, dunno why they were there, i guess we wait and see what the response is hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nima. : ) TimidGuy 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle
In the edit summary you asked what NGC was. I'm sure it stands for National Geographic Channel. Other than that, I do not know what user Migospia is referring to. MDfoo 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * we need to get an exact citation so we can show the audience who read the article where exactly the data is from, its better to find it now and get it over with then wait for someone else to ask the same question in the future hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Billy meier.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Billy meier.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 08:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Exopolitics
answer on Talk:Exopolitics Eleland 23:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:August 17 2006 nanjing ufo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:August 17 2006 nanjing ufo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 08:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Teslascope
I'll look at it ... in a bit ... got issues right now at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy. J. D. Redding