User talk:Bahar1397

2019|2024

I see that no one's welcomed you to the English Wikipedia, so consider this a "welcome" - even though you seem to be quite experienced here already! Please feel free to ask me any questions or help. I hope you will stay here and make English wikipedia a better place. VR _talk 03:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VR! if I am confused about something I will write you. Bahar1397 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to contact me anytime.VR _talk 21:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit to Los Angeles Times appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: Hello. Thanks for your explanation. The list added is related to the latest listing of the Los Angeles Times. The citation is attached, provides a well-known and notable entity list that's available at the Los Angeles Times.

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES NEWSROOM DIRECTORY ***Bahar1397 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in "non-notable" people which in Wikipedia is defined as people without their own article. Furthermore, as per

WP:NOTDIRECTORY we possibly/probably should delete the entire list - Arjayay (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed a similar section at The New York Times and have deleted it for similar reasons to those given by Arjayay above. I have no reason to question that the names and titles are accurate (though in this case they are not cited to a source), but the indiscriminate listing of non-executive editors doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about a media organization of this stature. I don't go as far as Arjayay in believing that employees need their own WP article in order to be listed, but I think it would be necessary to show, through a cited description (not just a job title), that these folks are buck-stops-here decisionmakers in some key and (potentially) controversial aspect of the newspaper's operations. Feel free to discuss at Talk:The New York Times#Writers and editors. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 21:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahar1397, I like your enthusiasm and your attention to Wikipedia articles about newsmedia. I think you'd benefit from reviewing the Wikipedia guideline

This edit to The New York Times changed the plain-English phrase "the riots" to a link to The Riots. The intended reference in the article is to the 1863 New York City draft riots, which were already linked in the previous sentence. The article you linked is about a play which is about 2011 riots in England, which has nothing to do with The New York Times. No link was necessary here as (a) "riots" is a common noun used in its common sense; (b) the concept to which "the riots" referred had already been linked in the immediate preceding sentence; and (c), most importantly, the added link pointed to an article that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

This edit to The Wall Street Journal linked "Business & Finance", the name of a section of an American daily newspaper, to a Wikipedia article about the similarly named Business & Finance, which is a fortnightly magazine from Ireland. The unsuspecting reader might think that The Wall Street Journal was inserting copies of (Irish) Business & Finance into its newspaper, or that there is at least some connection between the two. There isn't. Please check the targets of your links to make sure they are accurate. This one in particular should have raised a red flag; individual newspaper sections rarely merit their own Wikipedia articles.

This edit to Chronicle Publishing Company is a similar case. The fact that the San Francisco Chronicle was once named The Morning Chronicle does not guarantee that our Wikipedia article The Morning Chronicle is a worthy link. In fact, that article is about a defunct newspaper in England. In the world of newspapers there are certain names that tend to be used over and over again (The Times, The News, The Chronicle, The Gazette, The Tribune, etc.), and not always with the city or region name to tell them apart. To add a link based solely on the fact that the names match, without checking to make sure it's the "right" Chronicle, is a disservice to the readers. And as with Business & Finance above, pause to think about it: Knowing as you do that The Morning Chronicle is just a previous name for the publication better known as San Francisco Chronicle, which has a Wikipedia article at that name, does it make sense that there would be a relevant Wikipedia article at the former name? It makes more sense to assume that any article called The Morning Chronicle is about an unrelated publication that is best known under that name.

Keep working at it! We all start somewhere. You may want to take a day or two to do a deep dive into the whole

As per the notice above, please stop

WP:OVERLINK are quite clear on the subject. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@David J Johnson and Toll Booth Willie:, Thanks for your helpful guidance, yes, I will definitely use your help and guidance. Bahar1397 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

Mhhossein why do you put this on my talk page? where have I commited an "attack" on another editor? Bahar1397 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please look at the help section for descriptions on Wikidata and Short Descriptions. I reverted your short description where you state that Ed Bradley "was a journalist". In fact, many on Wikipedia "were" something but that is not the correct short description. I recommend you look at other article short descriptions if you are unsure. Cheers! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Norma Rangeri and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Norma Rangeri, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bahar1397! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MurielMary (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have as much right to comment in your RFC as anyone else. Please don't edit my comment out of the RfC.VR _talk 18:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Modussiccandi was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

More sources not affiliated with the subject or her employers will be needed to demonstrate notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Norma Rangeri and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Norma Rangeri, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Modussiccandi (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, Bahar1397. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Bahar1397. Please, be careful when adding links. You have been linking target pages that have nothing to do with the linked text: [1][2][3][4]. Since they are not always obviously wrong just looking at the diff, these tend to go unnoticed and not corrected. Best, MarioGom (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. Bahar1397 (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Your edit looked to be in error. The cited article states that it was originally ".net", which is what I remember it being. Furthermore, your edit made the section not make sense, as it later stated that it was renamed to "net" with no indication that it had ever been called anything different. — Smjg (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. Bahar1397 (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Foreign policy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]