Talk:Nazanin Afshin-Jam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reads like Promo Material[edit]

Also, Kay Meek Centre isn't in Vancouver (it's in West Vancouver attached to West Van High, and for those not from this area - that's a separate city), and speaking at Kay Meek is hardly notable material to include in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs work[edit]

This page needs a lot of work. I don't have the time or inclination. Phrases like "Blessed with the voice of angels..." are completely inappropriate. I've hacked out some of the ridiculous entries, please correct the rest - gyaresu

Sorry, I find it ridiculous, that you would think, you have to sort out what other people should read or not read about Nazanin, who, to be sure, has a voice of an angel, as far as I am concerned (although neither you nor me really know what exactly is the voice of an angel ..) ~~J~~ April 12th 2007
It is only appropriate for editors to communicate information from sources, not to express personal opinions; if a verifiable, reliable source communicates that Ms Afshin-Jam has a "voice of an angel", this can be stated (quoted), and cited. Otherwise, as the earlier editor noted, it has no place in an encyclopedia article on this artist. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide any additional information about her and her upcoming album to expand her page LiveLIfe 23:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propriety of use of first name (familiar)[edit]

Is it appropriate to refer to her as "Nazanin" throughout? Shouldn't we use her last name, Afshin-Jam? Or is there something special about Persian names that makes this appropriate? VaneWimsey (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Yes, obviously correct to use family name, and will check and change this. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nazanin Afshin-Jam.jpg[edit]

Image:Nazanin Afshin-Jam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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.

BetacommandBot 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of interest in N Fatehi, have done some editing here...[edit]

I updated information on MacKay's current position in government, created the "Early life" section (so birth and immigration content did not appear solely in the lede), moved citations from the lede to appropriate places in the main body, created a full citation for the Two Nazanins book (and added initial book review-type content). I also noted that the key biographical detail—before today's work, 9 of 29 references, or >30% of sourcing, were from non-objective sources (i.e., non-independent, where the article subject supplied information to the website; see National Speaker Bureau and Halifax webpages). The NSB, Halifax, and Black Rabbit references were inline tagged as poor sources. The citations/sourcing are therefore—for these and further reasons (much unreferenced factual content, bare URL and other footnote format issues, etc.)—substantially deficient. A multiple issues tag was therefore set, and some section and inline tags will be added in the opening sections, to call attention to the direction this article needs to move. Le Prof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.82.39 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting your reversions at N Afshan-Jam[edit]

I am a serious academic editor, and your reversions do not have any Talk, or explanation, as required by WP. NOTE, I EXPLAINED, EXTENSIVELY, WHAT I WAS DOING AND WHY (SEE SECTION IMMEDIATELY ABOVE). My explanations were made before my edits were saved, so there is not even a time-lag excuse. You are violating WP policy by reverting without any explanation. READ AND USE TALK. DO NOT REVERT WITHOUT DISCUSSION. Le Prof

Please address citation needed tags...[edit]

It is inappropriate to have long lists of places where an individual has made media appearances (TV, radio, print), unless those lists appear in a verifiable source. Please add one (or more) verifiable sources to the lists that appear, so this moves to being an encyclopedic article. Le Prof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.82.39 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opening of article annotated, so new editors understand need for sourcing, in BLP articles[edit]

I annotated the "Early life" section I created, and the early paragraphs/subsections of "Education and career highlights", to indicate all the places where factual information appears without verifiable sources. This article is in dire need of further attention, as was already noted years ago. It is intended as an encyclopedic article, not as a fan site, or extension of the professional materials of the artist. Please help move the article toward being an authoritative, independent source of verifiable information on this notable individual. Note, the "citation needed" tags are annoying, but accurate—as soon as they can be replaced by one or more citations, all the better. But they should not be removed carte blanche, just to give a better impression of the article; the article is in as poor of a shape as the tags—opening, and inline—indicate. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WP:BLP states that any unsourced text can be removed immediately. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to be respectful of earlier editors, by giving them the chance to source the unsourced information. All of it is laudatory, none seemingly derogatory. Besides, all my newly added edit material was sourced! The material that appears that is unsourced was all already there before I began work. Bottom line, by reverting my edit, you removed sources, and made the article less well sourced! Same is true regarding tagging—by removing the tags, the article is returned to a status quo that is substantially unsourced, but without any tags to warn readers. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of the text is not an issue - WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Newer editors can and probably will practice elsewhere. I also do acknowledge that I initially removed your good additions to the article - I apologise for this. But as you can see I did a more thorough deletion of unsourced content. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BE RESPECTFUL, PER WP[edit]

STOP REVERTING MY WORK CARTE BLANCHE, WHILE I AM WORKING, AND WITHOUT EXPLANATION IN TALK. YOUR ONE LINE DOES NOT COMPARE TO MY 30 LINES EXPLAINING MY EDITS. BE RESEPCTFUL OF OTHER EDITORS, AS THE WPs DEMAND; IN PARTICULAR, DO NOT BEGIN EDITING WHILE THEY ARE IN THE MIDST OF WORK. THIS JUST ADDS TO CONFUSION. LET OTHER EDITORS EDITS STAND FOR A TIME; DISCUSS THEM HERE. LE PROF 71.239.82.39 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were going to add citations (of so far you have not stated) then do revert my removal and add them. But I have no obligation to let edits have some 'brewing time', and I would never value a counter-argument per the amount of words. Do please continue with your work, but do not introduce the unsourced content again. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THE UNSOURCED CONTENT IS RAMPANT IN ARTICLE; YOU ARE GLOSSING THE REAL ISSUE[edit]

I am AGAIN reverting your reversions at N Afshan-Jam.

Your reversions—RATHER THAN BEING DISCUSSED IN TALK, WITH PERHAPS LIMITED EDITS—do not have substantial enough Talk and explanation, as required by WP, to allow you to remove blocks of carefully constructed text.

IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE SPECIFIC TEXT WITHOUT CITATION, MAKE A NOTE IN TEXT AND WAIT FOR DISCUSSION.

If you are really set on removing material without citations—first, my new material should not be removed, because it has citations, and second, to be consistent, you will have to remove very large swathes of the REST of the article. Take it slow; stop exerting authority that is not yours. Be respectful, to others, and the process.

If you do not have time to discuss them, you should not be making big edits. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'word limit' for discussing controversial issues; maybe I shall repeat what WP:BLP says - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You engaged in ZERO TALK before making your reversions, which IS against WP, which is based on assuming good faith on the part of other editors. Moreover, you did not take the time to examine the state of the article before I started editing.
I am a champion of careful citation, which is why the opening tag was added! You are acting without due consideration to others' Talk, and another's intent—see my next comment. You are reverting/editing BEFORE discussion, which is also against WP.
In re: removing unsourced content: If you are set to do this, read my next entry, they please, be consistent: Remove every sentence that has factual information that is not common knowledge. And watch EVERYONE come here to revert you, because that edit will gut the article. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat for other editors and to make clear[edit]

…to not dave": All unsourced material that appears in this article was already present when I began editing; I did not add any unsourced material, only rearranged and tagged it.

All material that I added contains citations. Please do not start a reversion war, and waste both of our time. The uncited or poorly sourced material has been here for years. To remove all unsourced material would mean gutting the article.

Do not act as if you are sole voice or authority here. The goal is not one person having their way—it is that the article improves. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If gutting the article is required, then so it shall be. Don't worry, you're not the person in question; please, calm down. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am calm, but committed and will be tenacious. You are out of line. Please elevate this matter for adjudication. You are wasting good editing time in your "fly by" arrogant attention to this. Where have you been for the last few years, when the article languished without improvement? I arrived today, by way of the Nazanin Fatehi article, and sought to begin improving this one, as well. You are making the job of improving articles here a waste of time.
I would also add that to give this religious, WP-fundamentalist attention here is grossly inconsistent; unreferenced material in BLP articles is rampant (and I myself have been criticized elsewhere for its rapid removal). Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles are a matter for another day. Please check your talk page; I wished a third opinion before you did if you wondered. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I cannot make sense of this. I am traveling, and do not consult user talk when I am. My comments have been made to your login Talk page, and here. I am not engaging in further discussion elsewhere. It gets too complicated. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note in removing[edit]

Note, "not dave", in removing whole blocks of text without careful attention… You also removed citations that were present (to the NSB and Halifax citations), which were marked for improvement. I will remove some inline tags, and add section tags instead, to make this clearer. Again, I advise waiting while another committed and clearly conscientious editor is working, thereafter reviewing the whole of article View history and related Talk, and only then beginning your changes. Your knee-jerk, fly-by changes are not thoughtful, or helpful, either to this article, or to Wikipedia as a service venue for subject matter experts seeking to contribute. Were yours the only correct / acceptable approach, the section tags that I have added would not exist. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise again for my initial fly-by revert. I was just heavily confused by the suave of citation needed tags added to the article. I did not take previous edits into consideration - note that I was using the anti-vandalism program Huggle and your edit showed up in the edit queue. This doesn't infer that you are a vandal, me (a co-developer) and/or the lead developer have not invented programs that are clairvoyants - your edit just showed up in the queue because of the high amount of citation needed tags, as well as the lack of an edit summary (your edit is assigned a score that prioritises what edit I see first and vice versa). Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP THE REVERSION WAR. YOU ARE NOT ASSUMING COMPETENCE OR GOOD FAITH.[edit]

Please wait until others adjudicate this matter. You are acting hastily and disrespectfully, of another longstanding editor. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NEIL PLEASE WAIT BEFORE JUMPING IN.[edit]

CONSIDER BOTH SIDES BEFORE ACTING. WAIT AND READ THE COMMENT OF BOTH PARTICIPANTS BEFORE REVERTING! Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP, stop shouting, and stop reverting. Once unsourced material is taken out of a BLP, it cannot be put in without a proper source. --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an edit was called for by "not dave", then it should have been discussed, as I did extensively in the Talk, before I made changes. The correct place to discuss content is in the article Talk, not at an user Talk page (!), IP or otherwise. Moreover, "not dave" violated other WP, which you are decidedly ignoring. If an immediate edit was called for, it should have been more carefully, not throwing the bathwater out with the bath (removing new sections created, removing existing citations, etc.)—what was done was sloppy, and lazy, and you are supporting it carte blanche.
My perspective is clearly stated at the Administrative page that drew you here:
I have nothing further to add. If you think the article is in better shape now, than before you added your attention, you deserve the quality that you generate. I will elevate this through other channels, but otherwise wash my hands of this childish nonsense. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite satisfied the current version is better than this tagfest. I don't understand why you can't improve the article without re-adding unsourced or poorly sourced material. --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the dates, temporarily, so you can look one last time at the article—with the section headings and in-place citations that are also being mucked up by your sledge hammer approach to this issue. As I have said, this is my last effort, to make you see sense. You disrespect, and do not assume competence or good faith of other editors, and ignore all your friend's mis-steps, and commit more yourself. Look at the diff between my earlier edit, and your sledge hammered one, carefully. If you want to do a thoughtful edit, fine. But you have created a mess. My last word. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am reverting one last time, to give Neil and "not dave"...[edit]

…a chance to stop mucking up the article. Their superficial revision removes section headings, valid citations, etc.

Instead of acting as a mindless, relationally driven clique, and ignoring the more subtle aspects of this disagreement, they can again revert, and create more of a mess than was in place when I first came to the article today.

Apart from doing this last reversion, attempting to give them a last chance to THINK and ACT FAIRLY, I will not attend further to the article. If you believe mucking up in this way is the ONLY route forward, then so be it. Article is yours, and you have lost this editor for good. Le Prof

And it's been reverted as per WP:BLP. I hope you will not revert again as you have already blown by WP:3RR. --NeilN talk to me 18:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are power-hungry… , reverting before fully vetting and considering another's argument. I will give this no further time. You have mucked the article up, it is yours. Enjoy the feeling this gives you, faux and artificial though it is. 71.239.82.39 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note "not dave"'s ESL apology under "Note, in removing…" Talk section above. Congrats in singlehandedly, and single-mindedly propagating a disservice through superficial attention, that even the originally confused initiator better realizes was overly hasty. What a circus act this place is. Article is now yours to sort, or not. Cheers. 71.239.82.39 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP content "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't worry, I've told him twice. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, a silent edit, but no admission of error...[edit]

Still, getting it more correct to my edit is better for the article, even if the reverting editors involved cannot publicly admit to haste and capriciousness. 71.239.82.39 (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent, mate...[edit]

…you need to delete the rest of the "Education and Red Cross work" Section.

I added back the "citation needed" to indicate that the second sentence is unsourced, and added back the "better source" tag to the first and third sentences to indicate that these are taken from a source (record of a speaking engagement), where the material appearing on the web page was provided by the speaker (i.e., the article subject). It is therefore not independent reliable material.

Per your adherence to WP, the whole paragraph should be removed as unsourced or improperly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.82.39 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent, mate, la troisième partie…[edit]

…you now need to delete substantial portions of the "Activism and awards" Section. I have marked as "citation needed" or "full citation needed" the unsourced factual statements in this section (which concerns the subject that I am interested in, and drew me to this related article, in the first place). Since you find these completely unacceptable above, you must also find them so here. Please, see your strategy through to its consistent, logical end. (Of the 5 other valid citations there, I had added three that escaped your earlier sledgehammer, only because they were in the edit prior to the one sieved up by "not dave".) 71.239.82.39 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I replaced a few sources in the article. A few of them were unreliable, but most of them were only tangentially related to what they supported. I located better sources that solidly discuss the statements. The most obvious example was the statement that her debut album got good reviews. None of the sources stated this. When you make a statement like that, you need to find a secondary source that explicitly states, "The album received positive reviews by multiple critics." You can't just cherry pick a few reviews. Second, if I remember correctly, none of those sources were even reviews. One of them was even a blog rant about how she's a poseur. That's hardly what I'd call an album review. Instead, I replaced that block of citations with a single one that actually states that she released the album and describes the genre influences. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Ninja, I am sorry to not have thanked you explicitly in the next Talk section. You may wish to look at the thrice appearing first citation. And thanks in particular for removing the National Speakers Bureau and Halifax biographical references, whomsoever did so; these were clearly non-independent sources. Cheers. Adieu. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something specifically wrong with the first cite? --NeilN talk to me 06:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huff Post bears links to Wikipedia, including one in this HP article, to this Wikipedia article, and the text appearing in the HP is near verbatim to the text that appeared in an earlier version of this Wiki article relying primarily on non-independent-sourced biographical information (National Speakers Bureau citation, as provided to them by the article subject). This is chicken and egg, but until it is sorted, it is suspicious. Otherwise, in general, we do not have the highest view of Huff Post as a journalistic source, and believe that fundamental biographical details might be available from other better sources. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are alternative sources of biographical content:
The latter of these is cited/quoted at length by the PBS, here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/01/society-rights-activist-beauty-queen-nazanin-afshin-jam-weds.html
Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've replaced what could be replaced. Others can decide if the HuffPo reference and the material which uses it as a cite should be removed altogether. --NeilN talk to me 11:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should all the areas of Ms NA-J's activities with the red cross be in Caps, or should all be lc? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources have Poverty-Disease Cycle as a proper name, some don't. I've de-capitalized it so it fits in with the list. --NeilN talk to me 23:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ninja...[edit]

…and others for cleaning up an article that was in a mess of a shape, at the start of the month. I hope he can give continuing time, now, to this article of newfound interest. I would encourage all, him and others, to find better sources for this activist, celebrity and artist, especially insofar as her life has intertwined with the Kurdish Iranian of note, Nazanin Fatehi. The citations at both sites have tended to all be from very poor, web-only sources, mostly pop-media. Despite some inexplicable deletions of decent sources here—where for instance has the full citation for important book, "The Tale Of Two Nazanins" gone, that was in earlier?—the sources now appearing for NA-J are in much better shape than ever before. I hope others interested in reporting in an unbiased way on this woman's life and career will find room here, to contribute. I will have nothing further to offer at this page, or in response to any replies made in response to this sincere statement. Others are welcome to any last word they deem necessary. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book itself is a primary source, and, as such, is not of particular interest to Wikipedia, which prefers secondary sources. The ISBN and other details can be listed in a bibliography section. A biography of a living person must be based on third party, secondary reliable sources. Strictly speaking, tabloids and frivolous pop culture media are not forbidden, as long as they are reliable sources; however, if I can find better sources, I generally replace them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point being made is that the article subject is an author, and in recognizing her, biographically, as being a published author, it is reasonable, to provide readers of WP to a reliable route to the book itself. The point was never to draw biographical or other information about her from the book. That's all. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, Ninj, why are there still sentences with citation needed, here? Are we giving Ninj time to find more sources? Fine by me, just curious. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly nothing wrong with listing the book, like I said, but it's not really suitable as a citation. Normally, something like that would go under "filmography" for an actor or "bibliography" for an author. It's not completely unknown to list such things in references as sidenotes, but I find it unintuitive for readers. It also gives the false impression that nearby statements in the text are backed by citations. Anyway, I've been looking for sources on Canadian music charts, but it's not easy for me to locate reliable sources. I've found a few vague statements that she did in fact score hits on the Billboard charts, but billboard.com does not seem to have the data online. Sometimes it's available on Google Books, where you can find archived versions of the physical Billboard magazine, but I haven't invested the time in rooting through that yet.
My most pressing concern was to get this article to the point where we could remove the cleanup tags, and my editing often slows down quite a bit once I'm satisfied that an article no longer needs emergency work. At this point, it's often slow, piecemeal progress that often gets the article to higher quality assessments. Don't worry; we'll find citations eventually. The information seems more-or-less true, but I haven't been able to corroborate it yet. I don't think it's necessary to remove the unsourced information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, but then I always have. Your perspectives, "My name is not dave" and "NeilN"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprof 7272 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much opinion on this, but it seems good to me. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to poke the bear with a stick, but…You do understand, "not dave", that this is a relaxation of your earlier statements, insisting that all unreferenced material be immediately removed, even if it means gutting this or any other article? Mdr. But, better late than never to a constructive, collegial position. I look forward to see where Ninja and others committed to the article take it. My interest was only ever peripheral (coming here because an important Kurdish Iranian human rights page linked here). So I will not be doing any other work. Would be glad to see the fly-by interest of others blossom into solid, longstanding contributions. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where has all the interest in the quality of this article gone[edit]

I ask… (Apart from Ninja, who might listen in—to others I ask…) If there was such a strong commitment to this article's subject, and the quality of the article's presentation, why only the short, fly-by stint of participation? No attention since the 5-7 May flurry of 35 edits (non-Le Prof edits), and apart from the solid edits of Ninja therein, almostly nothing but reversions and the cleanup that doing so required.

Cheers to real workers like Ninja, that actually get stuff done when they come in. Do not BLP articles, and Wikipedia, deserve more like him—more than passing Huggle- and Twinkle-induced fits of attention? Are the motives of such tech-driven touch-and-go editors always pure, and activities of such always above reproach? I wonder as I wander… Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT is more useful than leaving condescending notes. And no, leaving a BLP in this state and expecting others to find sources is not fixing it. --NeilN talk to me 00:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do I take that as a "no", even as you continue to beat the same "half the truth drum"? mdr Cheers mate, just wondering if anything good is going to come from this, besides my 3 or 4 new friendships. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inline "citation needed" tags persist...[edit]

…months after the edit war occurred here over whether or not all citationless sentences demanded wholesale removal (Le Prof in the negative, not dave and NeilN in the affirmative). Reminded of this brouhaha after reading the Sakyong_Mipham article. Of course I could do nothing to clean that one up, without setting in motion a similarly pointless set of events there, as occurred here. The urgency and intransigence of the earlier debate here, and the subsequent total disinterest in/inactivity at this article, alongside the general state of Wikipedia BLP material, remains ironic. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to get one of Wikipedia' fundamental norms for editors. Articles with unsourced statements exist (about 342,700 of them). We get that and we accept it, given that articles are never finished. However if someone removes unsourced text (hopefully with a reason but that's less necessary on a BLP) don't put it back unless you also add a source (and again, that goes double for a BLP). --NeilN talk to me 23:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that the apparent hypocrisy of not dave's original stern pronouncements (all out, immediately, and evermore) persist. Otherwise, I get it, perfectly—don't touch anything unsourced, because moving it about entails removing it and readding it—hence no work done at Sakyong_Mipham. Perhaps you will help me change this? Or promote me for an award, given to those that "Ignore All Rules in an audacious way that protects the 'pedia", i.e., to improve article quality despite rules and operations preventing it in particular situations... [1]? No matter, mdr. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

...turn the following added sentence...

  • "In a newly published report in CBC it is claimed that she was one of the prominent supporters of closer of Canadian embassy in Tehran.[17]

...into good English, check to see it is at a proper place in the article, and complete referenced [17], which appears to be a URL only (improperly formatted, incomplete) citation. Cheers, I cannot edit here for fear of conflict with others, but wanted to call attention to this problem. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. And you should probably re-examine your editing history on this article to see why you came into conflict with others. --NeilN talk to me 14:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nazanin Afshin-Jam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazanin_Afshin-Jam&oldid=1204573925"