User talk:Illuminati777
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Nnamdjou, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Care4Chairs, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013[edit]
Stop spamming me please.
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Notice[edit]
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nnamdjou possible legal threat. Thank you. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Illuminati777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please unblock me because the users spammed me several times over and over again and deleted my sources and did cause me harm, they deleted my independent references with spam and I never made any legal threats, your conclusory allegation is wholly unfounded, I merely stated that cyber-bullying is illegal and they were cyber-bullying me with spam, now working together are these two conspiring users teaming up on me with their spam, are you aware of the definition of a threat? Threat is defined as a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done; here I merely stated applicable laws and to protect Myself from pain, injury and damage, not to inflict it; your confusion of the definition of a threat only further proves my point that the users were spamming me and threatening me by actually damaging my reputation via an unjust and unfounded blog, complaint, and un-constructive edits...Instead of offering constructive edits pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines, they spammed me......I will remove the wikis but they should have merely assisted me in fixing the nuances and instead they removed my independent third-party references; furthermore, the alleged un-conforming wikis were wholly conclusory and begged the question they asked. Yours Truly.
Decline reason:
Please read WP:No legal threats. This and this are blatant legal threats, and per the no legal threats policy you cannot be unblocked until you retract all legal threats. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Illuminati777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
WP:DNB MelbourneStar and Vigyani violated this policy and now I am blocked from even doing anything about it, they are the experts, and they purposefully did this to me when it has not even been 12 hours since I signed up...below you will find proof of how a newcomer can contribute [see Yu Darvish contribution below]
User:Blackmane was fair and even he agreed that MelbourneStar and Vigyani were out of line by spamming me with templates and using bots to erase my wiki while I was still editing it. Yes I should have 'shown preview' longer before I saved the page, but I saved the page to see if my links were working and these two individuals, as User:Blackmane agreed, were out of line and spammed with templates and bots all on my First day of editing, I was trying to give the public valuable information about sociopolitical issues that should be worthy of an encyclopedia wiki; there are far more irrelevant wikis than Care4Chairs, which is a non-profit to help people in wheelchairs! They purposely did this out of spite and published my IP and who knows if they will try and hack me! I am scared! These two , MelbourneStar and Vigyani, are career cyber-bullies who use their experience in an unacceptable manner to exert power over inexperienced editors such as myself. I have contributed to valuable legal wikis with independent legal research and years of schooling. I choose my education to help others with sources like wiki, instead of giving me constructive criticism as required by wiki guidelines, they spammed me with bots and templates and more spam; I was scared...and it is 100% clear that they both teamed up on me and did so together to unduly influence the administrator and wiki affiliates. I was trying to write them back but I did not put it on the talk page because I was being spammed, so I tried messaging them so it came across as vandalism when really I was trying to have a discussion. Instead of them helping me create a conversation and talk on the talk page, they just spammed me. How is that fair?
I promise, promise, that I now understand the rules better, it is unreasonable to expect me to become an expert on my first day editing and creating wikis, over a year ago, I briefly edited a few wikis for school and under supervision of several persons more familiar with Wikipedia than I was; the point is, I am still learning.
I have lots of information to share with wikipedia, for example, Yu Darvish has a wiki that states he is Iranian, but under another wiki for Iranian Sports Athletes, his name is no where to be seen. I fixed that. I am really good at linking information and most my wikis have been 'fill in the blanks' type of wikis to help the public access relevant and useful information. Yu Darvish is a(n) MLB baseball player from Iran, this could end a conflict between two nations. If Americans see that an Iranian can be their son (figuratively speaking), then why fight a country when they idolize an Iranian Major League Baseball player. Even on Tv no one ever talks about how Yu Darvish is Iranian by his father, they just reiterate he is Japanese by his mother, because social constraints accept Japanese baseball and they have submitted to use after the atom bombs were dropped, but Yu Darvish is as Iranian as anyone, and the baseball fans in Texas love him, that information, that connection, is something only I saw and I immediately edited a wiki to connect the dots for the public, not for myself...I knew it already......The point I am making is that I can contribute to wiki and these users just ganged up on me during my first create a page attempt, they were mean and spammed me with templates, I in turn did not know who they were and thought I was being treated unfairly.
I again retract all perceived legal threats, although it is quite clear based on the dictionary that no legal threats were made, nonetheless, that does not mean I waive any rights, if you want and objective opinion, look at what User:Blackmane stated, he looked at the situation objectively and agreed with me, this was my first day and first edit on my own.... MelbourneStar and Vigyani were unduly influencing you by omitted several facts from you, facts Blackmane did not overlook, please consider this in restoring my account...
I am so sad by this I probably won't even create a page again, but it is about the principle of the matter that I can still do edits like the Yu Darvish edit referenced above, and provide the public and people of the world with information on noble altruistic causes....please, please, restore my dignity, and restore my privilege of using wikipedia freely, I promise I won't edit anything without consulting with someone authorized to so first....the thing is...i tried to initiate help, but it is just bots and bots and spam... I tried my own and in good faith, and was still adding several independent references regarding Care4Chairs and Nima Namdjou; things just didn't work out as planned because I am a new user and the MelbourneStar and Vigyani made fun of me instead of trying to help me understand. I read lots of the rules, but I can't read them all in one night, this was my first night editing Sir.
Please give me another chance and tell MelbourneStar and Vigyani that maybe they owe me an apology, I apologize to them and you for any inconvenience, I sincerely extend my apologies. Yours Truly.
Lastly, please See Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Ignorantia juris may excuse,
Wikipedia's own guidelines states: ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, users [meaning user Periodon, user Vigyani and user Melbournestar] violate[d] Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when [they] attack[ed] a new user [me] for ignorance of them [them meaning my inexperience].
Some pointers[edit]
Hello, I came across a post on the Administrator's Noticeboard where an administrator posted a review request on your block which they made as a result of legal threats that you posted. Please note that any time a legal threat, or even a perceived legal threat, is made on wikipedia, such as you did here, the administrators are required by policy to block the editor who made the threat, or perceived threat. The rationale behind this is written in this policy document, WP:NLT. To put it simply, legal threats, perceived or otherwise, cast a chilling effect on the collegial editing environment here. If you retract the legal threat, or even just to clarify that there was no legal threat involved, the admins will be more than happy to lift your block.
This next part could be quite long and involved so please bare with me and forgive my wordiness. I note that you are a newly signed up editor and as such should not be expected to know all the ins and outs of wikipedia. This is something that Melbournestar should have realised but their overzealousness in reverting what the think of as vandalism has given you a rocky start to your editing here. If you don't mind, I'll leave a few pointers about articles here.
- Articles that are kept on wikipedia are based on a number of core policies. These are, but not limited to, General notability and the availability or Reliable sources. These are the two most cited policies when it comes to articles. Rather than summarise them, I highly recommend that you have a thorough read through of the two pages. They're quite long and involved but are at the core of how things are viewed on the english wikipedia. In reference to the article that you created, the problem is that there is a distinct lack of references from secondary sources, such as newspapers, magazines, notable websites, and the only links were to the site of the organisation itself. There is a very limited set of conditions under which an organisation's own website can be used as a reference. From such reliable sources, notability can be determined.
- This leads me to promotion. Everyday many new editors sign up to wikipedia with the express purpose of creating a page for their site/foundation/charity/business to generate presence on the net and are straight away blocked for promotion and told that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a directory. Yes, there are many businesses/foundations/charities listed amongst the articles here but they are, in general, heavily reported in other media. This brings up the counter argument that is used which is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, also worth a read.
- Spam has a very specific meaning on wikipedia. Over the years, the editors on wikipedia have developed a very specific set of jargon, or wikispeak as we call it. Spam, or linkspam, usually refers to editors repeatedly adding links to their websites, or those of organisations they're affiliated with, onto articles. As you will know, wikipedia usually comes out as the number 1 hit on google searches, which has its own attractions for businesses or individuals seeking to increase traffic to their sites. Vigyani and Melbournestar did what is termed "templating" where they use a simple command in wikicode to generate an automated message, or in your case vandalism warnings. These are by no means bots as it requires a human to manually enter the code but after that the wiki software will input the associated text. Because of the uniformity of the look of warning templates they look like the work of bots, which do exist but these operate entirely in the background and only a few will actually interact with users, mainly to do with warnings, helping you sign your posts, corrections, suggestions, etc. The other bots you will never see their effect. Very few users are granted the privilege to run a bot on wikipedia as a bot running amok can do incredible damage.
- Article deletion on wikipedia has a number of layers. The one that your article was put up for was under the criteria for speedy deletion, which allows for the deletion of an article without discussion at an administrator's discretion. The list of CSD criteria is very long and articles will generally be deleted based on a selection of them, in Care4Chairs' case this was A7, lack of importance, and G11, unambiguous spam. To many veteran editors, particularly those who do new page patrol, a new article about an organisation with little content and references linked to the organisation's own site is usually thought of as business promotion and many will be packed off to CSD without a thought. Yes, the organisation may become notable enough one day to warrant its own article but it is not wikipedia's function to provide a space for "what may/could be". If you so wish, you could ask an administrator to "userfy" your article, which moves the article into your userspace. This means that the article will be stored in a subpage from your userpage but will not be visible to internet searches. users have a lot of leeway in keeping material in their own space, but that too is governed by policies linked here WP:UP. You'll be able to work on the article to your heart's content without fearing for its deletion out of hand.
I'll break off at this point as I'm sure there is a great deal of material that I've linked to to digest and hopefully I haven't overwhelmed you with information. If you have any questions please feel free to post a comment below. I have watchlisted your talk page so I will see if/when you reply. I'm sure the admin who blocked you will also have watchlisted your page so they may respond to my (rather length) post here. Blackmane (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- user Blackmane, they totally bit the newcomer! and now I can't even report them :/
- Blackmane, thank you very much for your information and no it is not overwhelming. You have made the policies clearer for me and more succinct, whereas before I had templates thrown at me in conjunction with de-constructive criticism.
- In regards to your kind and useful information, my point is as follows:
- I was trying to include several independent reliable sources such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California State Bar website, objective disinterested testimonials from people in wheelchairs, articles from an ABA approved law school as to my philanthropy, and more sources as they arise. My mistake was 'saving' the page instead of merely previewing it as I edited it.....my intention was not to publish the page, I wanted to check out some of the links and make sure they were working then I go back an edit, the final piece of the puzzle was all the references I had, only then, do I feel, I could have got a fair assessment from a user or administrator. Again, my inexperience leaves me saddened that I saved before I previewed, but a preview does not let you access links, ironically, the same people who hated on my wiki cite to the most generalized references on their Wikis, whereas I had pinpoint citations, so let me be specific, instead of just putting a link to the Secretary of State website for Care4Chairs' registration, I was planning on using a specific registry and scanned document with the organization's information, the Americans with Disabilities Act is also another source expressing the need for facilities and establishments to accommodate the needs of the disabled, Care4Chairs does that, and I wanted to cite to the specific statutes of the ADA addressing these issues, there is also a website for care4chairs as Secondary authority, just to show the entity has a mission-statement; and in regards to 'self promotion' ... I did not put my name on Care4Chairs, proving I did not intend to use the wiki for my own self interests, the org. is a non-profit, meaning I spent my money to help others with no money in return, if anything all it does is promote a valuable community service; so yes I understand....but reiterating my point...they shot me down before I could put my references up and my inexperience caused me to save before completed my references, I just wanted to check the links to see how the page was looking, I did not think people would start deleting it and teaming up on me as they did.
- Thanks a lot I am obliged for your time.
- Also, some user Peridon unjustifiably deleted my Care4Chairs page, the policy of wikipedia expressly states:
- G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
- Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.
- The Care4Chairs article was completely neutral and in a passive voice, and I was going to reference the ADA statutes and SoS filings to approve that.
- Another issue I can't do anything about because of these people biting the newcomers.
- A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events).
- An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant,
- I do not see how any logical person can argue the the Americans with Disabilities Act is not important... I do not see how any decent person could proffer that serving those protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act is insignificant.... I cannot see how the ADA in and of itself is insignificant, so it follows that a non-profit designed to fill in the gaps where the ADA has left holes is extremely important and significant to disabled persons, legislators who wrote the ADA, and the American people who's representatives approved and passed the ADA in both the House and the Senate. If anything, the ADA is the most significant piece of legislation affecting the most under-privileged class of persons...but the ADA does not provide free wheelchairs services to those in need, Care4Chairs does, it is significant and it is important, regardless of what some people say....
- Wikipedia's own guidelines states: ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you [meaning user Periodon, user Vigyani and user Melbournestar yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when [they] attacked a new user [me] for ignorance of them.
- Although you are blocked, you can use the {{helpme}} template which will raise a flag for an admin to come to your assistance. If you so request, you can also put together a reply and anyone who comes across your page, whether it be an admin or another non admin like myself, can copy it over to the admin's noticeboard. Peridon is an administrator and as such has the buttons to delete articles. If you so wish, I can make a request on your behalf to have the article userfied for you to work on.
- One very important rule that I failed to mention is the assumption of good faith. Peridon, acting in his capacity as an administrator, would have no personal view on your article. He would have judged it solely on the merits as raised under the CSD criteria. If in his eyes the article met the two points raised, A7 and G11, then he would delete the article. This happens regularly everyday and many editors will feel that they are being somewhat unfairly targeted for some reason or other. I emphasise that this is entirely not the case. Admins are required to be uninvolved with an article if they are to use their tools on them. Put it another way, if Peridon had done any sort of editing to the article he would have not been allowed to delete it, so please do not consider this an attack of any sort.
- I'll make a couple of points in reference to the deletion rationale. G11 does not require that the article be written in a pro/anti/neutral stance, the lack of supporting citations excepting those made by the organisation itself is often considered sufficient grounds to delete an article. With regards to A7, not being American I am in no position to make a view on the various acts you link to and will assume in good faith that they are as important as you state. However, the criterion in A7 is that the organisation is lacking in importance. This importance must be reported in secondary sources with editorial oversight such as journals, certain newspapers, websites and news channels and any article that mentions the organisation must do so in an in-depth and non-trivial way.
- WP:BITE is not a policy but a guideline and as such it's not really enforcable. Policy violations are enforcable, but there are some guidelines are so important that they are sometimes refered to as if they were policy. It was an unfortunate way for you to be introduced to the wiki but rather than chew over it, I'd much rather find a way to move forward and let bygones be bygones.
- Ultimately, the most constructive way forward is for you to fully retract the legal threats, or perceived ones, and also to make assurances that you won't make any more retaliatory edits (the pages have since been deleted so I can't see them although admins can). Yes, you may think you were justified in making them but on wiki doing things tit-for-tat is a very good way in getting yourself blocked.
- Oh, a few other bits of wikijargon. When discussing on talk pages, it is usual for one to indent a reply using a colon. Increasing the number of colons will increase the indent. You'll see what I mean when you open the edit window. For example
Statement A
- Statement B
- Statement C
- Statement D
- Statement C
In extended conversations you can use the colons to specify who you are replying to. For example
Post 1
- post 2 in reply to post 1
- Post 3 in reply to post 2
- Post 4 in reply to post 1
- Post 5 in reply to post 3
And as my final point, which is a regular bit of confusion for new editors. We're required to sign our posts as a matter of courtesy using 4 tildes ~~~~. Wikicode will automatically convert that to a signature for you. You can also click the Signature and Timestamp button in the toolbar above the edit window. P.S. you'll note that in a couple of places I've used nowiki tags around certain things. This is to tell the wiki software not to convert the code within the tags into the corresponding text. When you wish to use the code, please make sure you do so without the nowiki tags. Blackmane (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Nnamdjou (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
I have already retracted any and all perceived legal threats and now I need to change my name but I am blocked by admin from rightfully doing so. I tried to go to the appropriate bureaucrat to do so but I am blocked from the name change, so I am seeking help to do so. Nnamdjou (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Nnamdjou (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- You need a special unblock request to allow you to change your name - read at Template:Uw-ublock Ronhjones (Talk) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Illuminati777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Accept reason:
Your article[edit]
Hi, I've had a bit of a chat with Peridon, the admin who deleted your article, about userfying your article. The conversation is here User_talk:Peridon#Userfying of article here. Peridon makes the same points that I did earlier about the organisation being seriously short on notability. This is not to say it isn't important to the people who work for and are affected by the work being done by the organisation, just that it doesn't meet WP's requirements. I sincerely hope that this first foray into the forest that is Wikipedia has not discouraged you from contributing and that some area of editing here strikes a chord with you and encourages you to edit. If at anytime you need help, just drop me a message on my talk page or use the helpme tag. If I can't help you, I should be able to point you to the right area or people who can. Blackmane (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Nnamdjou (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) you have really been great Mr. Blackmane, if everyone on here was like this I would not have had these issues... I will nominate it you for several Wiki awards because the newbbiters who attacked my inexperience have all these awards...when you are the one who deserves them.
And yes, I understand, Care4Chairs is not notable enough for Wikipedia, it is not notable enough that it tries to help people in broken wheelchair get the free services they need, that is not notable; but it will be one day as will as I and you as my Wikispiration LOL you really have helped me put things into perspective. Care4Chairs will be in so many articles and so many publications that the naysayers will eat their own words, I can only pray that God has mercy on them for their ignorance, for I forgive for they know not what they do. I will look into this this Userfy from your associate Peridon, who must be related to God by blood or marriage, hopefully he can fulfill his destiny and Userfy care4chairs or help as you have Nnamdjou (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Feel free to request on my behalf for userfication or maybe next year Care4Chairs will be so big that you can create a Wiki for it, because it is not about self-promotion, it is about helping those in need. I thought it was significant and notable, I guess I need some articles and publications to meet the standards of Wikipedia. Even when that day comes, which is surely will, I will look back and see nothing has changed about Care4Chairs and it was more notable now than it would be in the future....because Greatness is not determined by a single act, but a habit, we are what we repeatedly do. - Aristotle 09:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) thanks agains !
- It would be wonderful if such an organisation does get some sort of recognition. Please keep in mind that their activities need to be reported in reliable sources before anyone can write anything about it. Maybe one day they'll get full articles on a site like BBC, CNN or a newspaper like the Wall Stree Journal, the Guardian or the Time. If your interest is in charities and similar organisations, you may like to have a look at articles like Save the Children. If you go to the talk page, at the top of the page there are links to a number of WikiProjects that specialise in these types of articles. You may find something of interest in those projects. I remember reading that you studied law (I saw this on an article you wrote about yourself before it was deleted) so you may be interested in the Law WikiProject or perhaps Social Movements task force under the Sociology wikiproject. The Organisations WikiProject may also be of interest. As I'm sure you'll find, there are wikiprojects for just about everything that has an article on Wiki and people who dedicate their time here to those sorts of articles so you'll easily find people with similar interests to yourself who are very experienced in the ways of wikipedia. Keep in mind though that the projects aren't about discussing the topic like a forum but for building articles on those topics. Blackmane (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Blackmane!!! Nnamdjou (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)