This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
…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)
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)
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)
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)
…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
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)
…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)
…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)
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)
…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)
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)
…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)
...turn the following added sentence...
...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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
…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)
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)
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)
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)
…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
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)
…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)
…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)
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)
…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)
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)
…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)
...turn the following added sentence...
...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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)