User talk:Mani1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mani1 (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 13 August 2004 (→‎Neutral Point of View???). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello Mani1 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Hi! I found that some of your contrinbutions to Wikipedia have been copyright violations. Please make sure you read the contibutors' obligations page before copying material from other sources. Also, I would appreciate it if you tell us if you have written the parts you added to the Poldasht and Aras river yourself or you have borrowed them from other sources. I would also like to ask the same question about the Image you uploaded, Image:Shahyad_111.jpg: have you taken the image yourself? If not, where have you received it from? We need the answer to make sure we are not infringing copyrights.

Thanks, and welcome to the Wikipedia, Roozbeh 01:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


درود بر آقا روزبه
Hi!
Yes I wrote the parts I added to Poldasht and Aras River myself. About the mage, I downloaded it from internet many months ago and I'm not sure about the copyright of it. I actually were testing the image upload in order to learn how it works.
On other pieces I posted, I tried to incorporate some general information which are found in many web sites and books into my own writings. Most of the incorporated pieces are general information and statistics which are found in many books. The books without a copyright.
I will surely pay more attention to the subject of copyright.
Thank you for your message.
Take care.
--Mani1 19:57, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Mani1, I removed the picture you had uploaded because of the highly possible copyright violation. Unfortunately, in the other pieces you contributed, you were not using the other texts as a reference, you were generally cutting and pasting whole sentences without anything but wikification. It's very important for Wikipedia not to violate copyrights. A very good practice to avoid copyright violations, is giving all the sources of your information at the bottom of the pages you create. If it's a book, list the exact bibliographical information, including author's name, publisher, and publishing date, with page numbers (and mention that the book was without a copyright, if that's the case). If the source is a webpage, list the URL.
What you wrote for the Library article, was an exact copy of a part of this. Your Gondishapur University library and Academy of Gundishapur, used direct text from this, your contributions to Khuzestan, were a copy from this. For Aran, you were using lots of text directly from this, and for Church of Saint Stephanos, it was this. Almost all of those pages display a copyright notice. Please don't tell me that they were your own writings.
Please take a note, and read more of the Wikipedia's policy and guidelines pages. Lots of good info can be found at the Wikipedia:Community Portal.
-Roozbeh 22:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please don't mess around with articles. Your contribution at England was not helpful (nobody calls England "the land"); nor your contribution at BBC, since the BBC's usage you describe is pretty much the same as every other news organisation. DJ Clayworth 15:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mani

This is in reply to what you wrote on my talk page. Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for deciding to contribute. I thought I'd take the opportunity to let you know a few things about how Wikipedia functions.

First, and trivially, actually you wrote it on my user page. User pages are for people to write about themselves. User talk pages, like this one, are for discussion.

In reply to what you said, there are no 'moderators' on Wikipedia. Everyone is as entitled to edit as anyone else. Having said that there are consensus viewpoints. You can argue against those viewpoints, but if you persist in making edits that the majority of other Wikipedians think are in accurate, offensive or just wrong, then your edits will be undone.

Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its job is to record the actual state of the world, with the minimum of editorialising. If someone believes or says something, then Wikipedia's job is to record the fact that they believe or said it, and not make comments about whether they were right or wrong. So in the case of the Persian Gulf it is correct to record that there were 2 resolutions specifying that that would be its name. It's also correct to record that the Arab states tend to call it the Arabian Gulf (because they do) and that some news agencies call it "The Gulf" to avoid having to choose (again because that's what they do). Once you start saying things like "this is the only historically correct name" you are recording your opinion. That's what we try not to do here.

You also shouldn't use other article to make your point. It doesn't matter what other places might be called if the same principles were applied - we're just recording what actually happens. DJ Clayworth 15:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View???

Mani1, what you are doing to the Persian Gulf article is clearly against the NPOV. Please read the previous link and also the NPOV tutorial before doing any more edits to the Wikipedia, either the Persian or the English one. roozbeh 16:43, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Look who dares to talk to me about the Neutral point of view!!!!!
So you have decided to provide answer to the Iranians too? In the Persian version you have announce you are not going to answer to Iranians and will censor any idea which is not compatible with yours.
You censored me and banned me 2 days and called me a saboteur just for expressing my viewpoint on Koran. I wrote: "Koran is a book believed by Muslims to be sent from God. In some cases it encompasses some contradictory concepts".
Where in NPOV is stated that people should be banned because of their (objective) ideas and there should be a rule which imposes a fundamentalist regime inside the Wikipedia?
You banned yet another Iranian just because he wanted to purge some of your writings and writing Persian in a Persian way.
Is it in NPOV that you should impose your style on others by banning them?
About the Persian Gulf, is promoting the act of omitting the adjective Persian from that name, by labeling that act as "neutral and unbiased", in accordance to NPOV?
--Mani1 06:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please read the policy pages I pointed you to, before you insist on what you think "neutral" means in the context of Wikipedia. The same has happened previously with you infringing copyrights and then denying it, mentioing you have copied them from non-copyrighted works, until I gave you a point-by-point reference.
I reject your claims, of course. I have not blocked you (and it wasn't you, it was an anonymous IP that I didn't know was you, you looked more polite on the Persian Wikipedia) because of that sentence, but because of the whole article which was offensive to Muslims. I have not written that I will not answer to Iranians, but that I will not answer to personal attacks. I have not written anything about censuring either, I have written that I will remove personal attacks according to the Wikipedia policy. NPOV is about keeping all different opinions in the Wikipedia. Removing other points of view, or insisting on replacing modern and common Persian words by obscure etymologically Persian ones, when used for puristic purposes and not helping the article become clear, may be considered vandalism and may result in a block.
About the Persian Gulf article, go and discuss it on its own talk page. Not only me has reverted your edits there.
My last recommendation: go and read the Wikipedia policy pages again and again. roozbeh 10:20, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

--

I have read the NPOV carefully and haven't seen in it that if somebody just describes a book (in this case Koran) as it is he/she should be censured or banned. So I suggest you read the NPOV more carefully again. I did not deny the copyright problem of those first posts. I posted several writings and some pieces were written by myself and those were what I refered to. I thought you had understood this. You call "the whole article" I wrote offensive to Muslims. "The whole article" was just this sentence: "Koran is a book believed by Muslims to be sent from God. In some cases it encompasses some contradictory concepts", noting more, nothing less. This is a description of what in my opinion Koran is. Now if your personal opinion is that telling the truth will be offensive to the people like you then NPOV do not give you the right to censor and ban others who write a descrition. I strongly recommend you to follow the rules of Wikipedia and do not let your Islamic zeal blind you. In the Persian Wikipedia I have asked you some questions about the layout and other issues and problems of the persian version, but you abstain from answering. Isn't that in line with your announcement about not replying to this and that? You call Persian words obscure and the Arabic ones clear. It says more about you than the obscurity of the Persian words. (You also think that Persian words are Pahlavi!). We Iranians love our own words and do not want some Arab-minded group to keep infesting it with an infinite flood of foreign loanwords. Bring me the clause in the Wikipedia regulations that allows you to ban and censur people who use less foreign words in their texts. I have not made any personal attack in the Persian version regarding you but you did (by giving me ultimatums). I hope I will have more time in the future to report your abuses and make sure this FREE Encyclopaedia stays free and democratic. --Mani1 14:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mani1&oldid=5183804"