User talk:Hamidifar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Iranian Physics News

Hi. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding your article and its VfD nomination. A few points:

  1. Nominating an article for deletion is not vandalism as long as it is done in good faith.
  2. Tagging comments by new, low-edit, or anonymous edits in VfD discussions is common practice and is not vandalism, as long as it, too, is done in good faith.
  3. Votes for deletion are decided by consensus by regular Wikipedia contributors. Anonymous and low-edit users, as well as users who created their accounts after the article was nominated for deletion do not have much say in whether or not an article is deleted or not. Inviting regular readers of your website to vote on the nomination is not likely to influence whether or not the article is kept.
  4. VfD is not a strict vote-tallying; it is meant to foster a discussion on the merits of an article or subject, though it may not look that way at first.
  5. You must have seen the text at the top of the page when you created your article: Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). This is important policy.
  6. Claiming a conspiracy against you by those editors who have voted to delete the article is rather uncivil and borders on a personal attack, which are forbidden on Wikipedia.
  7. Claiming that "only scientists" may have a say in whether or not your article should remain or not is a fallacy. Probably the most important aspect of Wikipedia is that anybody may edit any article. Stipulating that only scientists edit articles on science, only artists edit articles on art, etc., is tantamount to censorship.

Please don't take the VfD nomination personally. I am sure you are a very successful physicist; however, your website may or may not merit a mention on Wikipedia. Calm down and discuss this matter rationally and civilly with others and you will have a much less frustrating time at Wikipedia. Cheers, android↔talk 00:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Listing me at WP:VIP is ridiculous, especially since I have done none of the things you have claimed. Have you bothered to read the above? I'm trying to help you. Don't you realize that? android↔talk 01:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:3RR. Reverting changes on a page more than 3 times in a 24-hour period is forbidden, and is a blockable offense. Cease removal of the VfD notice from Iranian Physics News. android↔talk 01:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

You have reverted Iranian physics news five times. Please stop. I have listed this violation at WP:AN/3RR. android↔talk 01:55, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hamidifar, please don't add the {{vprotected}} template to articles, and do not remove the {{vfd}} template. The former template is for administrators only, and may only be used when a page is actually protected from editing. The Votes for deletion notice will be removed in five days, at the end of the deletion discussion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hamidifar, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Iranian_Physics_News. If you revert again, you may be blocked for 24 hours, and the page may be protected. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Since you've requested page protection, I have protected Iranian physics news from edits. I hope you're happy. Rhobite 02:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Hi Hamidifar - You wrote: Dear sir/mam, please tell me your point of view abouty this. Is this [1] a very clear vandalism or not!!!!!! Somebody obviously removed my request of protection from and it is obviously against the Wikipedia: protection policy [2] Am I right? I am waiting for your fair detail

No, that's not vandalism, because what you did was not request page protection. That may have been your intention, but the listing you made was on a page used by administrators to list pages that had already been protected, and as such what you wrote was removed for being in the wrong place. The request should have been made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, not Wikipedia:Protected page, although - since I see that someone has protected the page (Rhobite, above), you do not need to do that now. Grutness...wha? 02:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
PS - it's sir, not madam :)

[edit] Please contact me ASAP

I'm gonna critisize the one-sided freedom of some "kids" in science. Dr. Hamidi, I hope you read this and contact me ASAP. My e-mail address is jeff.marq@gmail.com. Hope to see your message soon...

Jeffmarq2

[edit] VfD

Iranian physics news has now been deleted, as the debate period is over and a decisive majority of the existing Wikipedia community expressed that opinion on the votes for deletion page. This is not a personal decision against you; you are free to contribute to other articles. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VIP

Hi Hamidifar. While on VIP I noticed your discussion about the "vandal voters". This matter is getting out of hand, VIP is not your page to use as you will, and your personal grievances are beginning to monopolize the page and detract from the ability of other Wikipedians to efficiently use VIP. Instead of continuing to post there, I ask that you post a brief and to the point list of you problems with the "vandal voters" on my talk page, where I (as a user who was in no way involved with the deletion of your page) will happily address possible violation of Wikipedia policy. Hopefully I will be able to assuage your concerns and we will all be able to move on. --Canderson7 21:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


I have looked over the information that you placed on my talk page. It seems to me that what I suspected from the beginning is in fact the case, the problem here is simply a misunderstanding. It is clear to me that none of the users you listed on VIP are vandals. They are all respected members of the community, who were acting properly according to Wikipedia policies. The vote for deletion was carried out properly and a legitimate verdict was reached. The bulk of the activity that you point to as vandalism is all part of the standard process on VFD, such as labeling possible socks. These users were not attacking you personally, nor were they part of some conspiracy to destroy your article, it seems clear to me that they acted in good faith and with Wikipedia's best interests in mind.

It is my hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and that you will use your knowledge of science to help better the encyclopedia. It will go a long way towards smoothing matters over if you allow all your posts to be removed from VIP, and post an apology on the talk page of each user whom you accused of being a vandal. Please don't hesitate in contacting me with any further questions, particularly questions regarding this unfortunate incident. My best wishes, Canderson7.


I have now removed the vandal voters section from VIP as it was causing undue clutter, please do not return it. --Canderson7 02:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of your entry from VIP

I have removed your entry from VIP, since it has now received very full comments and explanations, which make it as clear as possible that the actions you listed were not vandalism. To keep these comments available to you, I'm pasting in the full discussion below the line. Best wishes,--Bishonen | talk 23:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Pasted-in discussion begins here.

[edit] Vandal voters

Mindspillage (talk • contribs), Texture (talk • contribs), Rhobite (talk • contribs), TenOfAllTrades (talk • contribs), android (talk • contribs), Zscout370 (talk • contribs), Sockatume (talk • contribs), roozbeh (talk • contribs). The above people deleted my first scientific article by collecting 8 negative votes (all of them have been paid at a few hours!), changed ALL other positive votes as it is recorded in the history of the page[3]. I complain about this intrigue.[4]. For example: one of the removings: [5], one attack to one voter: [6] and so forth. See how many times these peaple placed their negative point of view in different places of the page only in a few hours.

Since this vantal BAND of admins/users are guilty, they cannot decide anymore about my Article Iranian Physics News. In addition to this vandalism, some of therse users placed a doubtful comment behid each one of the positive vote, to change the situation for their benefits. I want a neutral judgement, and immediate re-creation of the article. I strongly want other administrators of wikipedia to judge about their fault and obvious vandalism. I think only an expert in physics understands what means that Iranian Physics News has been linked to and as a creditable, of good standing and reliable Newswebpage from within the Institutes like Institute of Advanced Study of Basic Science [7], Quantum Diaries [8], The University of Alzahra [9] and The Selim and Rochel Benin School of Computer Science and Engineering [10] so on . They have motivated their colleagues to follow the notable News Website of Iranian Physics News. It seems not to be easy to get the attention of the mind of many researchers.

Some of these vandals placed a doubtful comment behid each one of the positive vote too, to change the situation for their benefits, and deleted some of them! In addition to this vandalism, some of therse users placed a doubtful comment behid each one of the positive vote, to change the situation for their benefits. The author of the words wants a neutral judgement under the supervision of some neutral admins out of this guilty network, and immediate re-creation of the article and thier official excuses. I strongly want other administrators of wikipedia to judge about their fault and obvious vandalism. They have personal problem with the author of these words (by having a qiuck look at the many negative comments they have made in here [11] to win) and may not be suitable for furthure judgement. It is obvious that I will write an article about the vandalism and black networking between these admin/users and will send my documents to some of the well-known scientific websites to warn them about the hiiden problem of Wikipedia.- A defender of scientific part of wikipedia against networking. -Hamidifar

The crimes of this network are:

1) They deleted 7 of postive votes. (for example [12] other links given above) under the sentense that these people have been motivated to vote here because they have been requested to vote for IPN in wikipedia and these new users are ignorant,
2) They attacked to the comments of positive voters many times under the sentence that these people are ignorant of the story and their claim is wrong [13] or evidence that they are one (Like this [14]),
3) During only 1 hour and 30 minutes they paid some negative votes repeatedly via diferent users or unkown users. All of the action have been recorded in the history of the page,
4) Roozbeh humilated the voters by labeling them non-contributer like this [15]. He/she struggled to increase the vvalue of a few people and decrease others votes under different humilating comments,
5) These people circulated in the vote page and placed many different comments on different places to force their nagative point of view to others. (another absolute crime),
6) At time: 22:37 UTC Rhohite placed a vprotection above the (article + vfd) and mentioned that this page is not allowed for furthur edit until the discussion (a link to the discussion page of Iranian physics news) is in progress,
7) The article finally deleted 6 hours after placing the vprotected command and all of the discussions have been deleted immediately. It is obvious that reffering to item 6 the discussion cannot be completed in 6 hours! and this action is called forcing personal point of view.

Obviously this network of admin/users decided to rule out a new user, whose first article was scientic, valid and absolutely notable. I request immediate re-creation of my first article and excuse of this network of admin/users from the author of these words. A copy of the official complain has been sent to the founder of Wikipedian Jimmy Donal Wales for furthur investigation. I'll be waiting for his and other administrators of wikipedia. A defender of wikipedia against networking -Hamidifar

  • User:Sockatume deleted some notes from other people's complain. if he/ she feels comfortable about his policy non-violation he/she can place he gave the decision to other admins to admire his defence. -Hamidifar
  • User:Sockatume deleted the above two item. Converted. -Hamidifar


Deleted notes, have I? Care to show me where I've done that?Sockatume 21:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
User:Hamidifar removed above at approx. 20:50 UTC, 15th May. I reverted it back in. Sockatume 20:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC) This comment moved 21:09 UTC same date, due to moving of the comment it referred to.
You cannot write among other prople's notes. It is another violation of policy of wikipedia. I transferred your notes to the after of the note. -Hamidifar
Care to point me to that section of Wikipedia policy? Sockatume 21:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy expressly prohibits personal attacks, including threats, to other users. So I would advise you not to ask rashly. Aside: There is no conspiracy. I do not know who any of the other voters are. I neither know, nor care, who you are, so I certainly can't have a personal problem with you. You're a significant proportion of the world's curvature away. My only concern is ensuring that the policies which hold the wikipedia together are not undermined. Sockatume 01:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
My only concern is ensuring that the policies which hold the wikipedia together are not undermined!!! The policy of Wikipedia never allow you and your friends (whom you are defending of) to place many negative comments/votes you want is a fair vote page and attack other users who have positivly voved. This is a policy violation by this network, which you are involved in. So you have defeneded many time to clear up your band. If you are really concern about the policy, why you don't complain about the obvious vandalism your frieds have done in the vote page. They have deleted, changed and attacked to voters badly. Concern it babe too! Now I am waiting for other admins point of view. You and your band should learn that wikipedia does not follow jungle rule, as you attacked to the voters in here [16] -Hamidifar
If you can show me what section of Wikipedia policy has been violated by our behaviour, I'll happily accept whatever punishment that admins consider to be correct. Sockatume 13:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
While this isn't the place for such discussion (the VfD has ended): A half-dozen links on websites which are themselves non-notable does not constitute notability, unfortunately. Have a look at the other web pages featured on the wikipedia; the majority are linked to be a large number (maybe hundreds of thousands) of other websites many of which are themselves extremely notable. Sockatume 00:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
As someone who has not been involved at all with that page or its vote for deletion, it seems clear that the page went through due process and was deleted in accordance with our policies. The people who voted for deletion of the page include some very well-respected Wikipedians. As always in these cases, votes from anonymous contributors, or those who have made few contributions to Wikipedia, are not counted. This is not the appropriate place to complain, since this is clearly not vandalism.-gadfium 23:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article was deleted to point out to and people understand its sufficient notability. Summary of debate: Attempts to prove lack of notability consisted primary of google searches; the blog was linked to by less than twenty sites in any language, and referred to by name in less than four hundred (searching for Persian name of blog) including the wikipedia article and its mirrors. Attempts to prove notability consisted of calling the voters' motives and qualifications into question.Sockatume 00:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Addenum: I'd be perfectly happy to see a re-vote under the supervision of a team of admins, however unlikely this may be to occur. Sockatume 00:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no vandalism here whatsoever; looking through the VfD history, it is clearly, to me, a consensus to delete (I see 9 delete votes and one to keep, discounting the newcomers, as is the custom on VfD). This is the first time I have looked at the issue, but this odd listing on ViP and the note on an admin's talk page caught my eye. While it is certainly possible that this is a notable website, we operate here by consensus. I'd also like to point out that you can list it at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion if you think you have a strong case. Antandrus (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
This page, OTOH, is for listing vandalism in progress—why is this weird entry still here?--Bishonen | talk 23:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead and archive it, this is pretty much an non-issue. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Pasted-in discussion from VIP ends here. --Bishonen | talk 23:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please stop reinserting the inappropriate listing on "Vandalism in progress". You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you do it again. You have accused editors of "vandalism" for voting on VFD, and for removing (with full explanations) your inappropriate post on the "Vandalism in progress" page. I understand that you're not familiar with Wikipedia process. That process can be very baffling to newcomers, but as you can see above, many people are trying to explain it clearly and politely and give suggestions for how the problems can be solved. Please read their posts in a positive spirit, because they really are trying to help. Please do not respond with personal attacks and threats.
You may not be aware that this is your discussion page: this is where people will write to you with suggestions and advice, and this is where they'll look for your answers. Please post responses here, rather than on "Vandalism in progress". --Bishonen | talk 11:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

    • You are threatening me that you will block me because I defend wikipedia against networking. [User:Hamidifar|Hamidifar]
      • I think you misunderstand the different processes here, Hamidifar. I believe what you want is Wikipedia:Request for comment, which is the appropriate place for your sort of concern, not Vandalism in Progress. Now, that being said, since the "offenses" you list are factually inaccurate (i.e., anon comments are not votes) you will probably not find much support there either. Nevertheless, THAT is the appropriate forum, not Vandalism in Progress, I'm removing your post there. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, Hamidifar, he is warning you that your attempts to "defend wikipedia" are being done in a way that is itself harmful to wikipedia, and that people who harm wikipedia will be blocked from doing so. Tverbeek 21:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Please stop networking and look at the truth for a moment. [User:Hamidifar|Hamidifar]
        • I see you did it again. By your own count, that would be the 7th time you reinsert this material on a quite inappropriate page, after you have been given good advice about where you could post it instead. (Note, however, that personal attacks and insulting edit summaries aren't allowed on any part of Wikipedia.) You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours.--Bishonen | talk 14:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qiyamah

Any expertise you could lend to the Qiyamah page would be much appreciated. Thanks. freestylefrappe 02:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/m/User_talk%7EHamidifar_af8c.html"