Talk:Shahrzad Rafati

Untitled
Hi Szolan. As you know, I've been looking at your page. You previously had 16 links to specific articles, I assume they all mentioned Shahrzad Rafati in some way. you now have a lot of links to landing pages of websites - none of which add anything. A reference is a place that someone can go to find more information about a fact, preferrably as accurately as possible. As a priority, can you make all your references more accurate, and then come back to me in IRC. WormTT  · &#32;(talk) 20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

hi worm, have incorporated most of the changes. please have a look. thnx {Szolan (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)}

Your proposal to move to article space
I think your article looks pretty good; however, I would like to see some of your external links incorporated in references instead if you can. There is still some unsourced information on the page that I believe could be easily sourced. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

HI Ryan! i have referenced it by removing most of the external links. can you please have a look now. thnx {Szolan (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)}
 * It certainly seems better in regards to the external links; although, it still needs cleanup. I think Worm That Turned might have some additional suggestions now that you have taken care of the referencing.  Many editors rush to get their article onto the mainspace and get it deleted in the process and we don't want that to happen.  You could possibly read up on Template:Cite web to improve some of your references, or you could use the Cite drop down menu at the top of your edit box.  I think your next step is to address the readability of the article.  Some of the wording is confusing and copy-editing may be necessary.  In addition, your lead section is 6 paragraphs long; however, it should not be more than 4 paragraphs long.  Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ryan! thnx for the input. have "cleaned it up" as much as i knew and also edited besides limiting it to 4 paras. please have a look. tks {Szolan (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)}

Biased Editing and Incoming Attention
This article will be receiving biased editing (and has already, such as the addition of “thief” to occupation) in a matter that is currently not settled at all. This article should receive a semi-protected status to avoid undo wars. Fuser55 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Fuser55 User Reignfall appears to be a biased editor (possibly the person the article is about, see their edit history) and is removing controversy section. WP editing guidelines do not prohibit this controversy section from existing if it's sourced correctly. I will restore said section when removed. 2001:56A:F430:1900:14A3:AF39:BCE6:3987 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct of possible COI, but adding a controversy section should be supported by secondary sources covering the issue. Fuser55 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a reddit link to a post concerning this page showcasing now reverted edits pushing a viewpoint benefiting the other party in the dispute. This is undue attention and should be another reason for protection. Fuser55 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * deleting all signs of controversy, especially while she is currently knee deep in one, would seem to benefit one of the parties in the dispute as well though. This wiki page is now nothing more than a puff piece Gaskina12 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your reddit link doesn't show any bias at all and instead refers to the incident with terms like "accused" and "he alleges" Gaskina12 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)