Talk:Nazanin Afshin-Jam

message: 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)
thread_title: Reads like Promo Material

message: 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)
replies: text: Please provide any additional information about her and her upcoming album to expand her page LiveLIfe 23:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page needs work

message: 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)
replies: text: .  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)
thread_title: Propriety of use of first name (familiar)

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nazanin Afshin-Jam.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Because of interest in N Fatehi, have done some editing here... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please address citation needed tags... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi, WP:BLP states that any unsourced text can be removed immediately. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opening of article annotated, so new editors understand need for sourcing, in BLP articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BE RESPECTFUL, PER WP 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Note in removing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PLEASE STOP THE REVERSION WAR.  YOU ARE NOT ASSUMING COMPETENCE OR GOOD FAITH. 

message: …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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh don't worry, I've told him twice. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am reverting one last time, to give Neil and "not dave"... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great, a silent edit, but no admission of error... 

message: …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)
thread_title:  To be consistent, mate... 

message: …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)
thread_title: To be consistent, mate, la troisième partie… 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where has all the interest in the quality of this article gone 

message: …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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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... ? No matter, mdr.  Cheers.  Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline "citation needed" tags persist... 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303024830/http://www.chicagofilmfestival.com/films_and_schedule/movie.php?show=honor_diaries to http://www.chicagofilmfestival.com/films_and_schedule/movie.php?show=honor_diaries
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924064251/http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16693 to http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16693
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified