User talk:Hessin fahem

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there - I see you have not had a formal welcome.
Hi there Hessin fahem nice to meet you.

Wikipedia needs and welcomes new editors.

I see you have jumped in at the deep end, and decided to start the hard way, dealing with articles for deletion. You keep raising interesting points about the proposed deletion of Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.

I see that you are still getting to grips with the editing interface. It can be a challenge as the wiki mark-up language does take some getting used to. You may find some helpful advice and tips in A Primer for newcomers - or this page may help, Help: Editing Wikipedia

I see that you are making a basic mistake that so many newbies (Me included) make. If you are making a comment, it's polite to indent what you say so that other readers can follow the chain or thread of the communication. You can indent your comment using ":".

Type ":" once for one level of indent, and Twice "::" for a second level, etc - I'm sure you can get the idea.

You can also use the "Show Preview" button, below the edit window, to check how your edits look on the page before saving the page for other editors to look at. That way, if you have missed out some Wiki mark-up text you can spot it and correct it.

You have mentioned a few Wiki ideas and pages but you don't seem to be able to link to them. The trick there is to use the square brackets. You mentioned WP:UHB WP:LEW - so I'll use those as examples.

If you type WP:UHB it will produce the link WP:UHB and for WP:LEW you would type WP:LEW. Get the idea?

I didn't know about those pages. It's amazing what you find in Wikipedia - and whilst I understand and even agree with your link to WP:UHB (It can be such an up hill battle getting to grips with how Wikipedia works) - the reference to Lamest edit wars is not valid. Can you point out where there has been a "Lame Edit War"?

I see that you have also been making comment about other editors. That can be valid, but it can also become Uncivil. You have mentioned the Wikipedia Five Pillars - and of course one of the Pillars is Civility. So I would also advise that you look at this "No personal attacks - and it does say "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor".

It's a common New Editor mistake - and I see that you have been leaving messages about other editors on different pages. That can be the right thing to do, but also it can be seen as Canvassing - "'canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."

So again - it is sometimes right to comment on an individual editor - but really the focus has to always be on Wikipedia content and making it better for everyone - globally.

I see that you have provided a number of links to sources that you believe answer the concerns about the lack of Notability for "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy".

Really, the best place to discuss them is the Talk Page for "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy". That way it does not disrupt the discussion over at Articles for deletion - Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

I think your reference to the book "Searching for A Cultural Diplomacy" - Edited by Jessica Gienow Hecht & Mark Donfried (The founder and executive director of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy) - may have some value.

I have checked the index and see that it does not mention the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy", even if the book has been edited by a founder - Mr Donfried.

The problem is that the book is not a good source about The "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy" - but it could be a good source for the subject of Cultural Diplomacy.

If you look at the page Cultural Diplomacy you will see that it lacks references and quality content, so you may wish to use the book to improve the content there.

The back cover of the book even addresses an issue that is very important in Wikipedia - Countering Systemic Bias. It's very interesting that the Book is about Cultural Diplomacy on a global basis and seeks to address the issue not just in it's "Cold War" USA Vs USSR foreign policy frames of reference.

The book does point out the global significance of Cultural Diplomacy - and it also has so many references to other people, their views and sources on the subject of Cultural Diplomacy - and the recommended reading is very wide. I have to wonder why no-one has used all those sources and references to improve the content of the page about Cultural Diplomacy since the book was published in 2010? But then again, editors do need to have the interest and even knowledge about the subject to know here to start in improving Wikipedia content. Of course it also takes time.

Since you have found the book, and believe it is so valuable, maybe you are the editor to improve the page on Cultural Diplomacy and improve content and references?

But you do need to consider matters carefully, as there is already concern about that page and the content for Cultural Diplomacy which already references very heavily on sources from The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and that seems to be more about promoting the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and not about the subject of Cultural Diplomacy. The content is not balanced.

If you look at the top of the page It is tagged concerning: 1) the tone of the article do not reflect WP:NPOV and citations are not from Independent sources.

2) It relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications.

3) It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view.

4) It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject.

Now if you are not connected to the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, and don't have a conflict of interest, that book may be a good way to address some of the issues with the page on Cultural Diplomacy and improve the content.

Even if you do have a conflict of interest that can be addressed - and there are ways to do that as suggested on the wiki page about WP:COI.

On the Diplomacy page there is also the subsection on Cultural Diplomacy which also lacks any references and that also needs attention. Maybe the book may have value in correcting the issues there and improve content?

It is an interesting book, but it does not address the issue of Notability for the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy".

Now, if there was a book written by someone who has no connection with the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy" and who explains What or even Who the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy" are, What they do, How they work and Why they exist, that could be a source for the page about the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy".

As it is, it appears that the book just has a connection due to the editor being Mark Donfried and one mention of the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy" on page "ix" - and that entry is headed "Contributors" and then the section is about Mark Donfried himslef, and is not actually about the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy". It's just a passing reference that still does not explain anything about the organisation - what people think of them - what they do. Do you see the difference?

The reference you have pointed to is actually about Mark Donfried and not the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy".

I see that you made comment "Your entire research althought admirable, does look as if it was not done thoroughly abd it is clear that you did not check several sources.." - which is interesting.

Myself and other editors have looked at many sources and looked for sources that meet the WP:V and WP:NPOV concerning the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.

There are many passing references to organisations - people connected with ICD - activities that ICD have in some way assisted with or been connected with - but they seem to all be about "Inherited Notability" - That does say:" 1.2 No inherited notability

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable."

You see - it's that issue of "The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable." - and that is what needs to be focused on.

As you know, I have even pointed out that someone has written a Thesis about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy back in 2009. It even features on Google Books ans also http://www.worldcat.org. The problem is there seems to be only one copy in one Library Globally, and it also seems no-one has read it since it was written. Even if it does contain interesting and detailed information about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy it still remains only one source - and as it says reliable independent sources (Plural) so there would still need to be other Sources to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV.

The fact that a page on the NATO website mentions the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy" and a single event does not mean that the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy" inherits any Notability from NATO. It's just a passing reference.

It would be the same as me saying "I Live in a house where a famous musician once lived - So that makes me notable and connected to that Musician." It's only an inferred connection and not a valid one.

Even if I turned the house into a museum about the musician, it may make for a footnote in information about the musician, but would still not make me notable in my own right.

You may find the page Notability (organizations and companies) helpful in gaining a more in-depth understanding of the issues, and how they need to be addressed. The Wiki short-cut to find and reference on the page is WP:ORG or WP:CORP - you just type that into the search field on any wiki page and it takes you straight there.

Now - using that NATO page you have raised as an example - If you can find a NATO reference - a web page - a book - a publication -  that explains What the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy" is - What they do - How they work - What their mission is - that could be a useful reference. Do you see the difference?

If you could find information from Third Parties - that is not The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy themselves - and not your opinion as a editor - which is about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and shows that they are Notable, with interesting details and not just passing references then we may be able to improve the Wiki Content about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.

I have also been looking at your comments on the links between The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and The Atlantic Club of Bulgaria. There is an odd relationship there. I find it surprising that both the website for Atlantic Club of Bulgaria and the Wikipedia page for Atlantic Club of Bulgaria have so little detail about The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.

I do see that when you look at the public registers for domains you find Admin Name:Mark Donfried Admin Organization:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD) - and that applies to both organisations. But does that mean they are really the same organisation operating under two different names in two or even three different counties?

It's also odd that it's possible to verify that The Atlantic Club of Bulgaria was founded in 1990 and yet the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy wasn't founded until 1999. So does that mean that really the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is just The Atlantic Club of Bulgaria under another name, or are they really two different organisations. Unless there is WP:V sources that makes the relationship clear it does not provide information for inclusion in Wikipedia.

It is odd that there is no WP:V information available to show the relationship and why the organisation would need two different names.

I also note that the wiki page for Atlantic Club of Bulgaria doesn't mention any relationship and does not even have any links to Cultural Diplomacy - and the word culture isn't even mentioned on the page.

It's hard to see why it is claimed that an organisation which states "The Atlantic Club of Bulgaria is a non-governmental, non-partisan organization dedicated to fostering the common values of the Euro-Atlantic community." is also linked to Cultural Diplomacy. Of course the Euro-Atlantic community is in fact better known as NATO. It is indicated that Atlantic Club of Bulgaria support many things such as building projects and economic issues - but they it would seem that Culture and Cultural Diplomacy are not even mentioned.

In Wikipedia there is the issue of Original Research or WP:OR - and it is a big issue. "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

If you can point to reliable Third Party Sources WP:V that say The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is really Atlantic Club of Bulgaria or Vice Versa, then that may have some value. But for an editor to simply assume of infer that idea is WP:OR and so has no place in Wikipedia.

There is a page that may help you with this issue - Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is built upon Verifiability. As Verifiability, not truth says:"'Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Verifiability, defines the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as 'verifiability, not truth.' 'Verifiability' is used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.'"

I've even checked the book you have referred to - Searching for A Cultural Diplomacy" - Edited by Jessica Gienow Hecht & Mark Donfried - and it seems that The Atlantic Club of Bulgaria is not mentioned - and in fact Bulgaria is not mentioned - so even there looking for sources fails. It does seem odd that if the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria is really the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy or vice versa there would be more WP:V sources - and not just a passing connection which could well indicate that a shared office is used in one country to save money and cut overheads.

So, whilst a web page where the Admin Name:Mark Donfried and the Admin Organization:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD) may imply a connection, unless there is a reliable source which explains the connection - and why the two names are needed in two different countries - and why one organisation focuses upon Cultural Diplomacy and the other on very different issues and aims - well putting different pieces of information together to draw a conclusion as an editor does make it WP:OR - and so it can't be used.

This issue arises all the time with new editors who are used to writing essays which do allow them to draw conclusions and express personal ideas by referring to sources. But In wikipedia that simply does not apply. As an editor you have no control over the truth - or any truth you believe - you have to provide reliable sources for all information as any encyclopedia requires.

That's why so many editors spend so much time checking and verifying sources and references - as well as looking for new one's. As editors, we can't take two sources and add them together to make a truth - we can only reference on what Third Party sources say and refer to. Only when there is a set of reliable WP:NPOV and WP:V sources does a matter or company become WP:NOTE.

I see this all the time with small charities that do fantastic work - but they do not get Third Party attention and coverage, so they can't be included in Wikipedia. P^(

That can be annoying and frustrating - but it is the Wikipedia way! P^)

So thanks for your interest in the issue of Articles for Deletion - Institute for Cultural Diplomacy - and congratulations for having the courage to Jump in The Deep End as a New Editor.

It can be challenging, and it can take time to find your feet, to get used to the arcane and even strange ways of Wikipedia, and figure out what are reliable sources that support and expand Wikipedia content.

If you need help you can always ask. Don't be afraid to ask for help! The short-cut to find out all about the help available is WP:HELP. Just use that in the wiki search field to find out all about the help available.

It has been an issue, in the past, that editors connected with the page "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy", and who keep making changes that don't agree with WP:V and WP:NOTE, have simply not discussed matters - and that has lead to some big issues that still have to be addressed. If you look at the page history (Here) you can see that a number of times the page has had to be reverted in the last week due to editing that does not follow wiki practices.

Even saying hello, and asking if they need help does not get an answer - and then the editors just stop and seem to vanish which does look odd and leaves many issues unresolved.

So if you have found sources and references that you believe can address the issues, why don't you start a dialogue on the Talk Page and work with other editors to Wikify the page on The "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy"?

If you don't want to ask for help via the talk page, there is also the help desk and The Teahouse.

If you have questions about References/Sources, and if they are valid, you can also get help with that at the Reference desk - and don't forget that there is a place to help new editors - New contributors' help page.

If you need to practice and gain experience in using the Wikipedia Editor interface you can always use your personal Sandbox - and that is easy to create - just look at the top of any page in Wikipedia for the link "My sandbox" and when you click it your own personal practice space can be created. It's a great place to experiment and get used to how Wikipedia works and learn how to edit the Wikipedia way.

Again - it's nice to meet you, and I hope you enjoy editing and working to Improve Wikipedia content the Wikipedia way - That's WP:NPOV - WP:V - No WP:OR and always Verifiability, not truth - and getting the balance right with all of those can definitely be WP:UHB for new editors.

All the best!

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  22:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there - your comments over at Articles for deletion - Institute for Cultural Diplomacy
I see that you have been getting confused again.

This may help you. The Golden Rule.

As it says "Articles require ' in ' that are  of the subject."

I did say that the book you keep referring to "Searching for A Cultural Diplomacy" - Edited by Jessica Gienow Hecht & Mark Donfried (The founder and executive director of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy) - may have some value on addressing Cultural Diplomacy.

Unfortunately - it does not provide "Significant Coverage" of the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy", just passing references to Mr Donfried and his role - and also the book is not "Independent" of the "Institute for Cultural Diplomacy" because of Mr Donfried's role as editor.

As I have said if you can find sources that can be referenced and which provide "' in ' that are "" - and so there is NO Conflict of interest people are happy to help.

Please do look at the advice and information Notability (organizations and companies).

It may help you find quality sources that can prove the point you are trying to make.

All the best

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  19:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's Discuss Things!
I noticed you removed some references, criticism, and cleanup templates from the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy article. Maybe you didn't notice but there are a few of us having a conversation about the inclusion of those particular sources/citations on the article's talk page (I'm not convinced, I added the material because they were removed without discussion previously). Maybe you're right that this material doesn't belong on the page. Either way, you shouldn't act unilaterially if there is a conversation going on. I'm going to revert at least some of these edits. Generally, it's also nice to start a conversation if you are making edits that you think are going to be controversial.

I'm looking forward to catting soon and I hope we can work together to improve the article! — m a k o ๛  01:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting content on talk pages that is designed to attack individuals. Harassment
I have to advise that putting content that is an attack upon another on a talk page is not acceptable.

First - new sections do at the bottom of the page.

Second - it's bad conduct and covered by Harassment

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place.

I'm sorry, but it does appear that you are acting as an agent for The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and you do have a Condlict Of interest

Also attacking an editor by placing comment and content in a Wiki Page is not acceptable.

Kindly stop and consider how bad this behaviour makes you and any associates appear. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  20:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to your message on my talk page
Dear Hessin fahem

In your comment on my talk page you speculate that I have a direct relation with the ICD. I submit that I do not; if I did, I would have stated a conflict of interest. This is not something I have to verify; as an editor, I have the right to anonymity. I do not find this unjust, for the controversy between us is not about me or you, but about the edits that we make and whether they live up to Wikipedia's standards. Those are the rules; if you disagree you haven't read MediaHound's postings properly.

I will tell you this much about myself, though: two things have driven me in this case: firstly, the urge to keep Wikipedia trustworthy and secondly, not wanting to see my own and other people's efforts going to waste. I and a few other editors have spend many hours trying to improve this article; if I have been keeping a ready eye on the article it is because I would hate to see all those hours of work being reverted by editors who did not care about Wikipedia policies. And you can say what you want, the article has now been deleted, so those of us who criticized it must have been right.

About the pdf that you could not open: all I can say is that I was able to open it, so my guess is that you need to update Adobe or just try again.

Skara B  14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

ICD: Moving Forward
As I'm sure you've seen, the AFD discussion for the article on Institute for Cultural Diplomacy was closed with a decision to delete. Personally, I thought the decision to delete was premature given that you just had posted a very large list of links; I think that the fact that it was so long, and cross posted widely, did not help your case. In any case, I suspect after a quick look that the situation would have gone the same way even if the links there were discussed at length.

It is possible to take the decision to deletion review but if you are interested in doing this, I would urge you to do so very carefully and not until later. If you do so, please do so with the help and support of other editors with established reputations and who do not share your strong single-issue contribution history which has raised concerns of a conflict of interest. If you try to take this to deletion review with the information you have presented so far (and in the way you have presented it), I am confident that you will fail. Getting another chance after that will be very difficult.

I've not gone through a full link-by-link analysis of the material you have posted but the ones I've looked at just aren't helpful at addressing the main concern here. It's worth being very clear about why this article was deleted: people are concerned with the notability of the organization.

In Wikipedia, there is no inherited notability. Sources that show that famous and notable people have given speeches at the ICD and served on their advisory board will not help. Sources proving that these events and speeches happened do not help (regardless of what other have implied, everyone believes the events happened and that famous people came). Mere mentions of the ICD in notable people's biographies or in news articles does not help. Articles or web pages that mentions that a film or event was held at or with the ICD do not help. Articles or interviews with ICD people that are not discussing the ICD in particular do not help establish the notability of the organization even if they might establish the notability of the people being interviewed.

What you will need to restore the article is actually pretty simple, and it's been repeated multiple times: You need works from sources, considered reliable by Wikipedia and a clear lack of relationships to the ICD, that are actually about the ICD. Think of major magazine articles profiling the organization. Think about articles from such major news sources that are excplicitly reporting about ICD events. What you need is quality and clarity, not volume. If you find two or three clear unambiguous articles form different major news sources that clearly have no connection to the ICD but that are about the ICD and its work, or that are profiling and describing major ICD projects, you will be able to succeed. Additionally links that do not do this clearly do not help and may even hurt because they obscure the issues and can make you appear desperate and biased. Good luck. And let me know if you need any help or advice by leaving a short message on my talk page. I'm off to other editing projects. — m a k o ๛  18:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please respect talk page guidelines
Dear Hessin fahem, would you kindly
 * 1: post your comments on my talk page at the bottom of the page as the Wikipedia guidelines suggest and
 * 2: not leave messages for — m a k o ๛  or any other users on my talk page.

Finally, if you want to open a case against me, then I am obviously interested in being informed about it, but could you please
 * 3: find the right channels and stop posting your innuendo randomly.

Skara B  08:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Skara - I too would welcome Hessin fahem pursuing the correct channels.  Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^)  (talk)  19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Make Your Comments At Deletion_review

 * Again - you have been making comment on my talk page, and other's talk pages, as to your views on the deletion of Institute For Cultural Diplomacy.


 * Please raise your concerns in the correct place - it is Deletion_review


 * The deletion review Articles_for_deletion/Institute_for_Cultural_Diplomacy states:

"'Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.''"


 * The talk page has been deleted, the correct place to make comment is at The Deletion Review page.


 * You have not lodged a deletion review. Please make any future comments there.


 * Please stop placing random innuendo and false claims on multiple user pages.


 * Look at this page WP:HOUND, which addresses your statements that you will be following myself and other editors around Wikipedia.

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  17:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd point out what I said above. You don't have unlimited chances at deletion review. I'd advise you to work with others, including those with a long history of editing on other topics in Wikipedia, to build a strong and convincing case with new evidence before you try to bring things back to deletion review. I still haven't seen evidence that I would likely lead to having the article restored, so I'd advise you to be very careful and cautious. — m a k o ๛  20:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette
Greetings Hessin!

I know this isn't a big substantive issue but these little things do matter. I can see that you're rubbing a few people the wrong way because of talk page etiquette. In any case, I think you would be well advised to:


 * 1) Always edit at the bottom of the talk page by using the "New Section" link if you're starting a new conversation or by replying and indenting (with the ":" or "::" characters) under the full message you are replying to.
 * 2) Do not cut and paste text between multiple pages. If you want to draw somebodies attention to do something, use the Template:Talkback template (there are instructions there) to point people to some place you have left a message for them on some other part of the wiki.

I hope that helps. I'm going to reply to the message you left on my talk page over there and then leave you a talkback template to show you how it's done.

Sorry there are so many rules and pieces of etiquette in Wikipedia. Editors like myself have learned these issues over many years. I can understand it's hard to jump in so enthusiastically. :) — m a k o ๛  20:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)