User talk:Manik666

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Manik666, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Khoikhoi 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This message is regarding the page Kurdish people. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you.

1 Sorry
2 Emails
3 Harrassment
4 Vandalism by Acuaman
5 NPA
6 The NPA Warning Against me is Over Ruled
7 ADMIN
8 Complaints about User:Diyako and User:InShaneee
9 Continued harrassment
10 Editing closed AfDs
11 Case against Problematic Users
12 I would like to talk you

[edit] Sorry

Hey sorry Manik, I didn't know. I'll revert my edit. It's just that you and the other guy both reverted the same edits on the Kurdish people page. --Khoikhoi 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not worry about a thing he is the one who forces me, not that I really care. The truth is the truth no matter what it says on the net. I only use Wikipedia as an information source. He likes writting on it at the same time as he is doing his...okay he is getting pissed. LOL. Manik666 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emails

Go to someone's user page. Then on the lower right corner you'll see a button that says, "E-mail this user". Click on it. :) --Khoikhoi 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who's user page are you looking at? --Khoikhoi 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, at my user page, you'll see list of links on the left of the page. (right next to the Wikipedia Signpost) It says, "What links here", "Related changes", "User contributions", and "E-mail this user". Click on that one. :p --Khoikhoi 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Go to your preferences and add your email there. You may need to check your email to confirm it. --Khoikhoi 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrassment

I warned Diyako about the issue, and it sounds like it shouldn't be a problem. It is not the responsibility of the users to 'chase down' things like this, especially in such an abusive way as this. Calling another user a liar and saying things like 'I smell a block' are highly innapropriate. Please keep your comments and actions civil. --InShaneee 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but he is clearly lying. The Kurdish issue appears after he delibertly tried to create a seperate definition for the celebration of Nowruz outside Iran. He additionally did not stop using the term Farsi when asked. This is not the first time. This is instigation. I also want to point out to his vandalism of the Kurdistan page. This user uses bogus and phoney resources as verification. This is a clear and inexcusable breach of Wiki guidelines, which needs no explaining. I expect you to fulfill your duty and responsibility as an administrator unless you agree with his actions. PLease look at the sources stating that the Kurdish flag is criminal to fly in Iran, then get back to me. In my good nature, I can not tolerate such vandalism as I have seen in the past from this user as well as user:Acuman. Manik666 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not type in all caps, it is considered impolite. I haven't seen him use the term since I warned him. And whether his sources are legitimate or not is not something I (or any admin) can really say, without a lot of research. If you believe that they aren't legitimate, find some sources that discount his information and discuss it on the talk page. --InShaneee 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

They are not sources. They lead to a Google search. Did you look at them? That is just it they are not sources. Alright I guess you are going to let the vandlaism slide. How can a blank page be a sources? Manik666 03:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if they are innapropriate, that isn't vandalism. --InShaneee 03:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ALright so I cn just give any website and anything I say can be added to an article. That is what you are saying to me. Manik666 03:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm saying. Calm down. What I'm saying is that you must have sources to back up your claims. If you don't think they're valid, say so, and preferably, find a source that says otherwise, or find something else that says why it's not valid. Just saying it's not right doesn't cut it. Anyway, that's what the talk page is for. --InShaneee 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He has no source he has added to the article using random or blank pages as verification. Manik666 03:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Then mention that on the talk page and let other contributers see that and comment on it. --InShaneee 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A prior user has beofre hand. Have you even read the talk page? Did you look at the sources now? It is on the flag article in Kurdistan. I am not touching it I want it as proof. This is exactly the type of behaviour that user:Diyako and user:Acumn engage in that hs the 40 or so editors upset. Manik666 04:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, no, I don't see what links you are talking about, unless you mean the Britannica links, which certainly aren't 'random' in any sense of the word. Secondly, if it's clearly not appropriate, then say so, and I'm sure other users will say that, and the consensus will be not to use them as sources in the actual article. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it vandalism. This is not something someone would be blocked for, and I'd appreciate if you'd stop demanding it. --InShaneee 04:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

DO you know what I am talking about? Where are you? There is no Britannica. Here let me make it very easy for you since you have a hard time following. It seems that you have a hard time understanding. Here take a look at the sources. Allow me, exhibits number one and two and three…fake sources claiming that the Kurdish flag is criminal in Iran. Where do they even talk about flags? {| class="infobox bordered" style="width: 250px; font-size: 95%; float: right;" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"

The unofficial Kurdish flag flown by Kurds in parts of Iraq and Armenia. The flag is banned in Iran [1], [2], [3], Syria [4] [5], and Turkey where flying it is a criminal offence [6], [7].

(In Detail)

Manik666 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Calm down and keep your tone civil. Yes, I see the links you are talking about now. While the first link does have nothing to do with the flag, and the third isn't an appropriate source, the second does have this line in it: "They cannot study their own language, celebrate their own festivals or even display their own flag." --InShaneee 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, he just added that one. It does not justify the other two and that one is conjecture. All Kurdish festivals are the same as other Iranians. As for langauge, It is taught in private schools and at the university level. You see what he is doing now. You see how unread sources are being used to justify claims? This third source was just added. Where does it state that iti is criminal or a crime? There is no verification that the Kurdish flag is a crime to fly in Iran. Manik666 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, let's cut to the chase here: What do you want me to do here? --InShaneee 04:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, if you read the archieves of the discussion on kurds ou will see that was pointed out in the past but ignored bu users such as Acuman in a very biased way. Note back then there were only two sources, the ones that had nothing to do with the flag. Manik666 04:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See it is unfortunate I must go through all this effort to point out the blatant destruction of articles by a small and select group of individuals with their political POV. I want the article protected. I wanted this user disciplined and warned about this type of destructive and unpleasant behaviour. It has been going for to long. I do not need to tell you what to do you are an administrator for a reason to make sure there is quality control and proper verification of articles. I believe this type of behaviour is a gross form of unsavoury vandalism. Tell me what you intend to do to this user. Especially after user:Diyako deliberately was instantiating and antagonism other users today with his uncalled for demeaning statements.

First of all, it's hardly 'blatant destruction'. Second of all, I'm not going to protect the article, as there is no mass vandalism nor an edit war occuring there. Thirdly, it's not vandalism, and I don't know how many times I have to say that. And finally, I don't intend to do a thing about Diyako. I don't see him making any comments besides CONSTRUCTIVE ones (something I have yet to see you do). And if you don't want the link there, why don't you just take it out yourself? Either way, until something new happens, I'm washing my hands of this matter. --InShaneee 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you have basically stated where you stand. You allowed him to get away with demeaning comments that he was warned about continuously by you and two other users. Now you are letting him continue with this behaviour. Furthermore, you have edacity to reprehend and censor me when it is that user that should be disciplined. You have watched these users degrade articles and other editors in personal attacks and it is all documented. Lastly I see on your user page and other pages you have been basically called a bad administrator who abuses his powers. I would have to agree with the authors of such statements and I will ensue on a course of having you told about your reasonability’s and obligations as an administrator. I merely want articles of all shapes and sizes protected in the sense where fabrication and counterfeit information are not inseminated into them. That is the sort of protection I am talking about. Very well allow this disgusting behaviour to continue. Manik666 05:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by Acuaman

Please provide specific evidence of vandalism by Aucaman. Also, I have posted the request for arbitration. Robert McClenon 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In my past discussions I have experienced this user reverting vandalism, even when verification and legitimate sources were provided. He has also side stepped process and changed other definitions. I mostly just watch, but I feel obliged to voice myself on this. Sadly, it would take a lot of time to provide verification for my statement and I will let the other users do, but I will take full responsibility for my statement and if needs be if found defaming him suffer the consequences. Look at his Aryan debacle that even is an example of how radical he is. Now, that you are talking to me I will point out vandalism on the Kurdistan article that is constantly reverted and ignored by users such as Acuman and Heja. It is based on the assertion of the Kurdish flag being a criminal offence in Iran. I have asked user:InShanee about this obviouse breach of Wiki code and see inactivity on that users part which is making me loose path in neutral admins. The user who is currently the centre of this vandalism is allowed to do as he wishes. Manik666 03:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, --Rory096 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me that was clearly not a personal attack. Read the conversation. I merely told the administrator I believe that through his ineptness he is not doing is job. He has allowed demeaning comments to be said unpunished and even when the desecration of articles is proven to him in a manner where he cannot deny it he allows the culprit to get off scot-free. You have no right or legitimate reason to give me a warning on my totally legitimate statement. Everything that he does not like can not just be categorized as a personal attack that is abuse of power on your part. He criticized me and in essence said that the disruptive editor was constructive while I on the other hand am not. I have merely criticized him back not even as retaliation but on his ineptness. I can not be censored for making a legitimate observation and complaint. You have no authority to make such a statement. Take your warning back, before the situation escalates. Fully understand the situation and the context of this conversation. Manik666 05:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling InShaneee incompetent is a personal attack against him, and saying that the behavior is "disgusting" is a personal attack against User:Diyako. I will not take my warning back, because, as the template says, personal attacks are inexcusable under ANY circumstance. --Rory096 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you quote the words incompetent? Any words I used were descriptive of situations and never directly of any individual(s). As for the word “disgusting’ in connotation with a user’s behaviour it is totally acceptable as a descriptive term for racially demeaning comments and injecting and/or falsifying information in specific articles. It is not ideal and model behaviour, now is it? Furthermore, when the user, user:Diyako, has been caught red handed after he was antagonizing other users with demeaning and derogatory terms nothing was been done by this administrator and he also comments him for it calling him a model/productive editor and myself the opposite. How ironic and erroneous. I told him that he is obliged to act on blatant abuse of editing. Your warning is totally compounded and uncalled for and we are totally allowed to make constructive criticism that benefits Wikepedia. Kindly, take your uncalled warning back, before the situation escalates. I will under no circumstances tolerate an illegitimate and illicit warning that is baseless. Manik666 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I paraphrased the incompetent part. To be honest, saying he's a "bad administrator who abuses his powers" is probably worse. --Rory096 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Is not the kettle calling the tea pot black! I have never made any personal attacks, but now some things have been brought to my attention, Rory. As I said before take your illicit warning back before the situation escalates for violation of administrative privileges and powers. Manik666 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am completely innocent of any accusations against me. You, however, certainly did make a personal attack, as described above. I will not take my warning back, and I am not even an administrator, so how could I abuse adminstrative privileges and powers? --Rory096 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to cite quotes please do them correctly and in full. Here is what I wrote; “Lastly I see on your user page and other pages you have been basically called a bad administrator who abuses his powers.” You are being self-defeating, my friend. My statement was based on what is actually and manifestly written on his talk page. That is what was observed myself on his talk page and it does not, in any shape, form, or manner, constitute a personal attack or correspond with the definition of personal attack you have given me. So again for the third time I will civilly ask you to take back the illegitimate warning you have issued me. Manik666 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you're not quoting the entire thing either. It looks to me like the next sentence reads "I would have to agree with the authors of such statements and I will ensue on a course of having you told about your reasonability’s and obligations as an administrator," (emphasis added) no? I will not retract my warning. --Rory096 06:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I made constructive criticism and I was entirely illustrating to him previous statements made. I agreed with the nature of the statements and the generic nature of the statements on his user talk page and that does not in any, way, shape, form or manner constitute incivility on my part or a blatant direct personal attack that justifies a warning. As you or any other reader can see my conduct was collected, cool, and civil. As I said before if a editor does not like something said it does not define the statement as a personal attack. In fact I do not even see you making any warnings to him for turning the tables on an innocent editor in the place of a problematic one which again he said, was a productive/model editor. This statement correlates unenthusiastically between the two. I have a full right to question another member or editors editing and behaviour. 'For the forth time I am asking you civilly to remove this baseless and uncalled warning before the situation goes beyond you and is moved by others. I do not want to create a state of affairs that is unconstructive for you as an administrator.PLease take the warning back, I ask you to do this with good faith. Manik666 06:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion on what you said. I don't like it or dislike it, I just saw that it was a personal attack and warned you for it. I have not said that anybody is a productive or model editor. I will not retract my warning, and cannot in good faith do so, as it was a personal attack. Also, again, I'm not an administrator. --Rory096 06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on my statements is what has resulted in the fact that you have issued a warning to me. You are contradicting yourself now. The question is, are my statements blatant personal attacks on individual users. The ascription of individual actions such as labelling disgusting or unwanted behaviour does not constitute a personal attack in any way, shape, and/or form. It is okay to admit that you are wrong. It does not say anywhere that Wiki Admin are always right. I am most interested to know how are conversation was brought to your attention. The user in question did not e-mail did he? Because if he did that makes his correspondence with you private or personal, which vanguards other questions. My critical statements were just that, critical, not personal attacks. They were critical of other editors’ actions or lack of action when it came to obligations and responsibilities. They do not constitute a personal attack and yet, again forth the fifth time I will ask you to retract your baseless warning. Manik666 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Even as, having read the sundry correspondences between Rory and you, I think you to be more in the right than he, I write to suggest that perhaps you no longer pursue this extended colloquy with him; most notably, inasmuch as he's not an admin, as he readily admits, his warning apropos of WP:NPA shouldn't be particularly worrisome to you. From what I can ascertain, each of you is a good editor and neither is generally malevolent vis-à-vis the project; perhaps it is best to concede that there are subjects about which the two of you will not agree and to return to other tasks. Cordially, Joe 06:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My attacks were neither personal in nature nor direct towards the individual(s)’ person. Mere ascription of actions and soft quilative terminology is no shape or form constitute or define personal attacks. Not agreeing with someone is not a personal attack either. Manik666 06:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, user:Jahiegel (aka user:Joe) I do not wish to create a commotion, but this is a matter of principles. I do not want to be tarnished by such labels nor will I sit back and watch defacement of articles. It is my responsibility as a community member and editor to uphold the values of Wikipedia, so that all users can benefit from the good work we all do to advance knowledge and human cohesion. Manik666 07:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The NPA Warning Against me is Over Ruled

I have received clarification and sanction that I am allowed to remove the baseless warning for personal attacks. As I matter of principle I believe that it was wrongly generated towards, especially in light of my engagements on pushing for administrative and editorial personal accountability.

[edit] ADMIN

Hello, what's your question? - cohesion^t 06:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to initiate the process were the unfounded and baseless warning I received for vague and civil statements to be removed. Personal attacks are directed and spiteful in character and I have not made any. Please guide and tutor me on the mechanism of having this illicit warning removed. Manik666 06:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you just drop it. This situation continuing isn't going to further the encyclopedia - so just forget about it. If you don't like the warning on your talk page, archive it. There are instructions for that at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Maybe the warning was wrong, but who cares? Let's just move on, and always try to nice to others in the future.--Commander Keane 07:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(posting anyway, after edit conflict)

I assume you are referring to the warning on this talk page from User:Rory096. There is no process for removing a warning on a user talk page, but if the warning unduly bothers you, you are free to remove it yourself. I have not researched the situation at all and am not commenting on specifics, but if you feel the message has been received, or is not something you want to see again, simply deleting the section seems an appropriate solution. There are venues for people who feel they have been the victim of user behavior, but one templated warning, even if in error, is below the threshold for such venues. - cohesion^t 07:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

THank you for your help and time Manik666 07:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints about User:Diyako and User:InShaneee

When discussing the actions of another editor, it is most useful when one shows the difference in the page that you are talking about. For instance, if I were to reference the comment you left for me, I would say, "User:Manik666 left this message on my page. That way i know exactly what it is you're saying that these users did that was against policy. In order to view these, simply click on the "history" tab at the talk of the page, anc click the buttons next to the entries you want to see the differences between. This is also why you don't have to leave content you disagree with on the page while an admin or other mediator looks at it. It's always in the history, so you can still show them the page difference if someone's done something you don't want on the page.

I have not seen anything particularly unsourced or against policy that Diyako has done, and you were pretty hostile towards InShaneee, to be frank. InShaneee, it appears to me, is trying to be calm in a tense situation. But I have seen nothing to make me think he's biased in any way. Your complaints about Diyako seem to be that you don't like the sources used, but I'm not clear what's invalid about those sources. Please be as specific as possible. JDoorj a m Talk 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued harrassment

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your continued harrassment of Diyako and other editors, specifically here. You need to learn the difference between something that is vandalism and something that you don't agree in or don't like. Please take this time to calm down. I hope when you return you are able to work on more civil terms with all editors. --InShaneee 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no authority whatsoever to block me on those grounds. Since when is a polite and civil warning a personal attack or derogatory comment? You are being a hypocrite, which is shown through your favouritism and one-sided blocks. I have engaged myself in a civil and satisfactory manner. You are abusing your administrative powers and should be stripped of them for negligent abuse and biased behaviour. I will commence in reporting your breaches of your privileges. Manik666 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

HOw is any of this considered harassment ?

What you have once again inserted into the Kurdistan article about the Kurdish flag, which originates from Mahab, Iran, is untrue or unfounded. You have stated that the Kurdish flag is criminal to fly in Iran. Not of your sources say this. This is grossly and transparently illicit on your part and is a defaming statement. If you wish to insert such comments you need credible verification. You have provided not and have even provided phoney sources that clearly make you in breach of the Wikipedian scheme of editing and the whole concept of responsible editing. You are perpetrating and committing yourself to using false which is destructive and a form of sabotage. This is an action done in what seems to be bad faith on your part. You have additionally used demeaning terminology to describe various other editors after you were clearly without any grounds for misunderstanding told to stop civilly. It can conspicuously be connoted that you wish to undermine a whole background of editors through such antagonism. Moreover, you have vandalised many Iranian related cites and have as a result been labelled as a saboteur, anti-Iranian, and a Zionist by various editors and members.Lastly you cannot just change or create articles after being told to stop when you have no verification. POV is not grounds for article changes. Wikepedia is not a political forum it is an encyclopaedia. I have personally judged your behaviour as harmful to intellectualism and the establishment that is Wikipedia. I will now warn you once to please stop this malevolent behaviour and engage in dialogue. I encourage you to voice reasonable change in articles and to stop disruptive agitation within Middle Eastern articles. We can all work together to make Wikipedia more informative and that much more of a better place to exchange knowledge and have cultural exchange.

Manik666 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing closed AfDs

As it says in bold letters at the bottom of the page, please do NOT edit AfD pages that have already been closed, as you did here. Your change has been removed, as old AfD pages are kept merely for historical reference, and are not meant to be modified after closing. Thus, I have removed your comments. Please take note of this in the future. --InShaneee 20:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee is not abusing his admin powers; AfDs that are closed are generally not edited, so it was completely appropriate for your comments to be removed. Please do not edit closed AfDs in the future. Thanks.--Shanel 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case against Problematic Users

This is the verification that this user cited these bogus and non-existant sources here [[8]]

These are the sources that are suppose to verify his claim that the Kurdish flag is a crime or is a criminal act in Iran. This is inexcusable, a mockery of, and outright abuse of editing privileges. Equated with this users repeated racist comments and personal attacks, as well as appalling behaviour that has been namely termed as “anti-Iranian” this constitutes deliberate intent to inseminate articles with POV, propaganda, and worst of all demeaning attacks on a whole society and national group. This is unacceptable in the spirit of understand that Wikipedia promotes through its information sharing. The actions of the editor that is the subject of numerous complaints once again provide evidence that he has unhealthy intentions or mens rea (a guilty mind).

This is verification that he see User:Diyako violating verification policy. Note USer:Dikayo claims it is a criminal offense to fly the Kurdish flag in Iran, but has never been able to provide a source.

[[12]]

After I ahve proved to him that the sources were wrong.

[[13]]

This is his plan of action

[[14]]

This is what he, the adminstrator I asked to be, quote, procative and responnsive to the negative behaviour of user:Diyako, later claimed is harasment on my part and said is worth blocking me for. I left this warning in good spirit after the administrator refused to take any action and told me to deal with the problem my self and solve it. It is all clearly indicated on my talk page. Here is user:InShaneee statement on my "Alleged Harassment." Remember this is after this administrator told me to take care of the problem myself. Nor did I get any appropriate warning. I did receive a warning for harassment from this administrator but the context was different and I also argue the nature of that warning. [[15]]

[you Have Fallacious and/or Speculative statements impregnated into articles]